Perfect example for 2nd amendment rights.

[Stormy Daniels]

What is your proposal for mitigating the 11,000+ gun homicides in the US each year?

Clearly the best option is to convert them into 11,000+ knife, bomb, and poisoning deaths.

Nope. I've already shown that advanced nations with stricter gun control have a far lower homicide rate.

If you like data so much, then you must also explain why US homicide rates continue to decline at the same time as those other nations, even as US gun laws have become more lax. Since you can't explain that, the only logical conclusion is to recognize that the existence of guns does not create violence, people create violence.

 

[2aguy]

Sure if he wants 150 rounds but who thinks like that? I don’t think many. Most people get a gun and then some extra magazines that they may or may not take with them.

And wouldn’t you rather a nutball need to carry 15 magazines and reload 15 times as opposed to 5? Each reload is time to run or disarm the guy.

In theory, I suppose. The time it takes to drop and reload is less that a second.

Wouldn't a more realistic option be to shoot back at him, rather than try to take him down bare-handed?

But seriously, with today's technology, a high capacity magazine would be easy to 3D print.

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.

 

[Pop23]

Sure if he wants 150 rounds but who thinks like that? I don’t think many. Most people get a gun and then some extra magazines that they may or may not take with them.

And wouldn’t you rather a nutball need to carry 15 magazines and reload 15 times as opposed to 5? Each reload is time to run or disarm the guy.

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?

About the same....since the Virginia Tech shooter murdered 32 people with 2 pistols and a mix of 10 round and 15 round magazines.....the problem isn't the magazine the attacker uses, the problem is he is using magazines in democrat gun free zones where the victims are unarmed and unable to fight back.

The math is simple....

Florida, no armed guard, no armed staff, 17 dead.

Maryland ....one armed guard, 1 dead.

See the difference?

Then you have the deadliest tool of all...the rental truck. Had he simply used a rental truck he could have killed a lot more people....the muslim terrorist in Nice, France used a rental truck and murdered 86 people in 5 minutes.....more people murdered in one go than in any of our mass public shootings.....

Rental trucks are deadlier than guns .....

If either shooter had a machine gun is there any doubt there wouldn’t have been more deaths? I think not. Luckily, machine guns are heavily regulated. Get the point?

Also Parkland wasn’t gun free, there was an armed deputy on campus

If either shooter had crock pot bombs, there is no doubt there would be more deaths. Want to continue with straw man arguments? If the Police and FBI did their job, neither shootings would of occurred...

Actually a couple of pistols or a shotgun would have likely taken down even more students, and that is what this is all leading too. If a murderer can't get one tool, they'll just seek out a different tool. It's what murderers do.

 

[Pop23]

Because idiots like you and the Obamaphone lady were more interested in FREE stuff than keeping criminals out of society.

Ok, keep telling yourself that

I know all about it, it is you that cant seem to pull your head out of your dumb ass.

Why can’t I pull my head out of my ass? Because I don’t want to drag bodies through the streets and go back to public executions? You’re insane man, and you jumping to Obamaphones is a pathetic attempt at trying to justify something that you are obviously incapable of justifying. Go in the corner and suck on your thumb for a bit, you’ll feel better

I don’t want to drag bodies through the streets and go back to public executions?

I thought the science was settled so no "innocent" person could be executed for crimes he didn't do. Why do you want people who murder, rape and child molest to get free over and over, thus having rap sheets a mile long? Are they your future Democrat voters, or brownshirt army?

I don’t want people who rape, murder and molest to get free over and over. You’re just making shit up again. You are completely clueless. Do yourself a favor and stop talking because you don’t know anything about what you are saying.

You do seem to want to make them more effective however.

 

[Slade3200]

Ok, keep telling yourself that

I know all about it, it is you that cant seem to pull your head out of your dumb ass.

Haha, look at you fucking puppets posting the same crap back to back. That’s funny

look at you fucking puppets

View attachment 186560

Do you have a right wing propaganda site you go to to get all these fun little pictures and videos?! That’s special. But we all know it’s bullshit. You can keep blubbering about these evil liberals. And there might even be a few that fit the mold. But that has nothing to do with me or my views so you really just come off sounding like even more of an idiot.

evil liberals

Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

Opening page - Dedication
“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”

Care to explain this?

Yeah you are pointing to Marxist radical doctrine. Should I post a link to a white supremasist Nationalist doctrine and have you explain it? How about we stop dwelling on the wingnuts and start dealing with reality. You don’t seem capable

 

[Slade3200]

Sure if he wants 150 rounds but who thinks like that? I don’t think many. Most people get a gun and then some extra magazines that they may or may not take with them.

And wouldn’t you rather a nutball need to carry 15 magazines and reload 15 times as opposed to 5? Each reload is time to run or disarm the guy.

In theory, I suppose. The time it takes to drop and reload is less that a second.

Wouldn't a more realistic option be to shoot back at him, rather than try to take him down bare-handed?

But seriously, with today's technology, a high capacity magazine would be easy to 3D print.

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

Of course if they put God back in public schools teaching good and evil, right from wrong, not 50 shades of grey, plenty of the violence on the street would go away. But then 47% of the voting base, that didn't vote for Romney would never vote Democrat again, if they knew the truth...

Are you talking about Christian religion or lessons on morality?

 

[2aguy]

I know all about it, it is you that cant seem to pull your head out of your dumb ass.

Haha, look at you fucking puppets posting the same crap back to back. That’s funny

look at you fucking puppets

View attachment 186560

Do you have a right wing propaganda site you go to to get all these fun little pictures and videos?! That’s special. But we all know it’s bullshit. You can keep blubbering about these evil liberals. And there might even be a few that fit the mold. But that has nothing to do with me or my views so you really just come off sounding like even more of an idiot.

evil liberals

Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

Opening page - Dedication
“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”

Care to explain this?

Yeah you are pointing to Marxist radical doctrine. Should I post a link to a white supremasist Nationalist doctrine and have you explain it? How about we stop dwelling on the wingnuts and start dealing with reality. You don’t seem capable

You focus on rare public shootings and call for bans on millions of items law abiding people use without harming anyone, and you accuse someone else of not dealing with reality?

 

[Slade3200]

Sure if he wants 150 rounds but who thinks like that? I don’t think many. Most people get a gun and then some extra magazines that they may or may not take with them.

And wouldn’t you rather a nutball need to carry 15 magazines and reload 15 times as opposed to 5? Each reload is time to run or disarm the guy.

In theory, I suppose. The time it takes to drop and reload is less that a second.

Wouldn't a more realistic option be to shoot back at him, rather than try to take him down bare-handed?

But seriously, with today's technology, a high capacity magazine would be easy to 3D print.

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

Murderers Murder, it is what they do. Limiting their tools is not the answer, if a murderer wants to murder, they find a way.

You think limiting law abiding citizens from a tool to defend themselves against someone that wants to murder or rape them will stop them, you are naive. Murderers murder and rapists rape. I, for one, don't want to make their job easier.

I think citizens should have tools to defend themselves and I think limiting the firepower of the tools we sell that end up being used to kill people is also a smart move. Yes people will always be murdered, nothing is going to STOP it but the damage could be LIMITED.

If somebody wanted to inflict max damage then a machine gun would be the weapon of choice. Instead we haven’t seen them being used. Why is that?

 

[Slade3200]

Sure if he wants 150 rounds but who thinks like that? I don’t think many. Most people get a gun and then some extra magazines that they may or may not take with them.

And wouldn’t you rather a nutball need to carry 15 magazines and reload 15 times as opposed to 5? Each reload is time to run or disarm the guy.

In theory, I suppose. The time it takes to drop and reload is less that a second.

Wouldn't a more realistic option be to shoot back at him, rather than try to take him down bare-handed?

But seriously, with today's technology, a high capacity magazine would be easy to 3D print.

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

In that case, you should be forced to 3D print your computer, paper, pens, and anything else you use to exercise your 1st amendment rights.

Can’t, my printer has been busy for the past week working on replicas of Stormy's boobs

 

[2aguy]

Sure if he wants 150 rounds but who thinks like that? I don’t think many. Most people get a gun and then some extra magazines that they may or may not take with them.

And wouldn’t you rather a nutball need to carry 15 magazines and reload 15 times as opposed to 5? Each reload is time to run or disarm the guy.

In theory, I suppose. The time it takes to drop and reload is less that a second.

Wouldn't a more realistic option be to shoot back at him, rather than try to take him down bare-handed?

But seriously, with today's technology, a high capacity magazine would be easy to 3D print.

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

Murderers Murder, it is what they do. Limiting their tools is not the answer, if a murderer wants to murder, they find a way.

You think limiting law abiding citizens from a tool to defend themselves against someone that wants to murder or rape them will stop them, you are naive. Murderers murder and rapists rape. I, for one, don't want to make their job easier.

I think citizens should have tools to defend themselves and I think limiting the firepower of the tools we sell that end up being used to kill people is also a smart move. Yes people will always be murdered, nothing is going to STOP it but the damage could be LIMITED.

If somebody wanted to inflict max damage then a machine gun would be the weapon of choice. Instead we haven’t seen them being used. Why is that?

Mass shootings with rifles are more rare than lawn mower deaths..... knives are used to murder more people every single year than 35 years of rifles used by mass shooters....

You are irrational and a fool.......

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Because idiots like you and the Obamaphone lady were more interested in FREE stuff than keeping criminals out of society.

Ok, keep telling yourself that

I know all about it, it is you that cant seem to pull your head out of your dumb ass.

Why can’t I pull my head out of my ass? Because I don’t want to drag bodies through the streets and go back to public executions? You’re insane man, and you jumping to Obamaphones is a pathetic attempt at trying to justify something that you are obviously incapable of justifying. Go in the corner and suck on your thumb for a bit, you’ll feel better

I don’t want to drag bodies through the streets and go back to public executions?

I thought the science was settled so no "innocent" person could be executed for crimes he didn't do. Why do you want people who murder, rape and child molest to get free over and over, thus having rap sheets a mile long? Are they your future Democrat voters, or brownshirt army?

I don’t want people who rape, murder and molest to get free over and over. You’re just making shit up again. You are completely clueless. Do yourself a favor and stop talking because you don’t know anything about what you are saying.

New York Prison Tailor Charged With Helping Convicted Killers Escape

Felons Richard Matt and David Sweat were discovered missing during an early morning bed check at Clinton Correctional Facility in Dannemora.

While making their escape, the convicted killers slipped through holes and cut into a steel plate and a steam pipe, then got out through a manhole and onto the street.

If these 2 were executed, then they wouldn't of escaped. Why do you love people who commit murder, rape and child molest and want them to be able to get out of jail to hurt others again?

 

[Slade3200]

Sure if he wants 150 rounds but who thinks like that? I don’t think many. Most people get a gun and then some extra magazines that they may or may not take with them.

And wouldn’t you rather a nutball need to carry 15 magazines and reload 15 times as opposed to 5? Each reload is time to run or disarm the guy.

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?

About the same....since the Virginia Tech shooter murdered 32 people with 2 pistols and a mix of 10 round and 15 round magazines.....the problem isn't the magazine the attacker uses, the problem is he is using magazines in democrat gun free zones where the victims are unarmed and unable to fight back.

The math is simple....

Florida, no armed guard, no armed staff, 17 dead.

Maryland ....one armed guard, 1 dead.

See the difference?

Then you have the deadliest tool of all...the rental truck. Had he simply used a rental truck he could have killed a lot more people....the muslim terrorist in Nice, France used a rental truck and murdered 86 people in 5 minutes.....more people murdered in one go than in any of our mass public shootings.....

Rental trucks are deadlier than guns .....

If either shooter had a machine gun is there any doubt there wouldn’t have been more deaths? I think not. Luckily, machine guns are heavily regulated. Get the point?

Also Parkland wasn’t gun free, there was an armed deputy on campus

Yes, there is doubt....since he was working in a building, and considering his inexperience he would have likely had a malfunction sooner in the process.....

Parkland was gun free......there were 3,000 students and staff and over 10 buildings on campus....and one armed resource officer who stayed outside instead of attacking the killer....

Law abiding gun owners were not allowed to carry their legal guns on campus..

It was a democrat gun free zone.

Gun free means no guns. You just said there was an armed guard, that’s not gun free

 

[Slade3200]

Sure if he wants 150 rounds but who thinks like that? I don’t think many. Most people get a gun and then some extra magazines that they may or may not take with them.

And wouldn’t you rather a nutball need to carry 15 magazines and reload 15 times as opposed to 5? Each reload is time to run or disarm the guy.

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?

About the same....since the Virginia Tech shooter murdered 32 people with 2 pistols and a mix of 10 round and 15 round magazines.....the problem isn't the magazine the attacker uses, the problem is he is using magazines in democrat gun free zones where the victims are unarmed and unable to fight back.

The math is simple....

Florida, no armed guard, no armed staff, 17 dead.

Maryland ....one armed guard, 1 dead.

See the difference?

Then you have the deadliest tool of all...the rental truck. Had he simply used a rental truck he could have killed a lot more people....the muslim terrorist in Nice, France used a rental truck and murdered 86 people in 5 minutes.....more people murdered in one go than in any of our mass public shootings.....

Rental trucks are deadlier than guns .....

If either shooter had a machine gun is there any doubt there wouldn’t have been more deaths? I think not. Luckily, machine guns are heavily regulated. Get the point?

Also Parkland wasn’t gun free, there was an armed deputy on campus

If either shooter had crock pot bombs, there is no doubt there would be more deaths. Want to continue with straw man arguments? If the Police and FBI did their job, neither shootings would of occurred...

What’s my straw man?

 

[miketx]

Unlike the rich elitist left wing commies protected by armed guards and behind walls, the middle class who dont have such luxuries, perfect example.

Gentleman breaking into the persons home with a machete with the intention of killing the man and his wife.

Fucking left wingers are losers. Esepcially the rich hypocritical white ones.

What is your proposal for mitigating the 11,000+ gun homicides in the US each year?

Arm the law abiding. Kill the criminals.

 

[g5000]

Unlike the rich elitist left wing commies protected by armed guards and behind walls, the middle class who dont have such luxuries, perfect example.

Gentleman breaking into the persons home with a machete with the intention of killing the man and his wife.

Fucking left wingers are losers. Esepcially the rich hypocritical white ones.

What is your proposal for mitigating the 11,000+ gun homicides in the US each year?

Arm the law abiding. Kill the criminals.

Everyone who wants a gun has one. That's kind of the problem!

Try again.

 

[Slade3200]

Sure if he wants 150 rounds but who thinks like that? I don’t think many. Most people get a gun and then some extra magazines that they may or may not take with them.

And wouldn’t you rather a nutball need to carry 15 magazines and reload 15 times as opposed to 5? Each reload is time to run or disarm the guy.

In theory, I suppose. The time it takes to drop and reload is less that a second.

Wouldn't a more realistic option be to shoot back at him, rather than try to take him down bare-handed?

But seriously, with today's technology, a high capacity magazine would be easy to 3D print.

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?

 

[Pop23]

Sure if he wants 150 rounds but who thinks like that? I don’t think many. Most people get a gun and then some extra magazines that they may or may not take with them.

And wouldn’t you rather a nutball need to carry 15 magazines and reload 15 times as opposed to 5? Each reload is time to run or disarm the guy.

In theory, I suppose. The time it takes to drop and reload is less that a second.

Wouldn't a more realistic option be to shoot back at him, rather than try to take him down bare-handed?

But seriously, with today's technology, a high capacity magazine would be easy to 3D print.

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

Murderers Murder, it is what they do. Limiting their tools is not the answer, if a murderer wants to murder, they find a way.

You think limiting law abiding citizens from a tool to defend themselves against someone that wants to murder or rape them will stop them, you are naive. Murderers murder and rapists rape. I, for one, don't want to make their job easier.

I think citizens should have tools to defend themselves and I think limiting the firepower of the tools we sell that end up being used to kill people is also a smart move. Yes people will always be murdered, nothing is going to STOP it but the damage could be LIMITED.

If somebody wanted to inflict max damage then a machine gun would be the weapon of choice. Instead we haven’t seen them being used. Why is that?

As pointed out before, what makes you think they will come up with less effective methods, when the tools that would be far more effective are not affected with these controls.

Makes no sense and only makes the killer and rapists jobs easier.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

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?

About the same....since the Virginia Tech shooter murdered 32 people with 2 pistols and a mix of 10 round and 15 round magazines.....the problem isn't the magazine the attacker uses, the problem is he is using magazines in democrat gun free zones where the victims are unarmed and unable to fight back.

The math is simple....

Florida, no armed guard, no armed staff, 17 dead.

Maryland ....one armed guard, 1 dead.

See the difference?

Then you have the deadliest tool of all...the rental truck. Had he simply used a rental truck he could have killed a lot more people....the muslim terrorist in Nice, France used a rental truck and murdered 86 people in 5 minutes.....more people murdered in one go than in any of our mass public shootings.....

Rental trucks are deadlier than guns .....

If either shooter had a machine gun is there any doubt there wouldn’t have been more deaths? I think not. Luckily, machine guns are heavily regulated. Get the point?

Also Parkland wasn’t gun free, there was an armed deputy on campus

If either shooter had crock pot bombs, there is no doubt there would be more deaths. Want to continue with straw man arguments? If the Police and FBI did their job, neither shootings would of occurred...

What’s my straw man?

19 year olds cant get a machine gun, just like I cant....Legally.... Are you really that stupid? Don't have to answer that, we all ready know.

 

[Slade3200]

Ok, keep telling yourself that

I know all about it, it is you that cant seem to pull your head out of your dumb ass.

Why can’t I pull my head out of my ass? Because I don’t want to drag bodies through the streets and go back to public executions? You’re insane man, and you jumping to Obamaphones is a pathetic attempt at trying to justify something that you are obviously incapable of justifying. Go in the corner and suck on your thumb for a bit, you’ll feel better

I don’t want to drag bodies through the streets and go back to public executions?

I thought the science was settled so no "innocent" person could be executed for crimes he didn't do. Why do you want people who murder, rape and child molest to get free over and over, thus having rap sheets a mile long? Are they your future Democrat voters, or brownshirt army?

I don’t want people who rape, murder and molest to get free over and over. You’re just making shit up again. You are completely clueless. Do yourself a favor and stop talking because you don’t know anything about what you are saying.

You do seem to want to make them more effective however.

How so?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Sure if he wants 150 rounds but who thinks like that? I don’t think many. Most people get a gun and then some extra magazines that they may or may not take with them.

And wouldn’t you rather a nutball need to carry 15 magazines and reload 15 times as opposed to 5? Each reload is time to run or disarm the guy.

In theory, I suppose. The time it takes to drop and reload is less that a second.

Wouldn't a more realistic option be to shoot back at him, rather than try to take him down bare-handed?

But seriously, with today's technology, a high capacity magazine would be easy to 3D print.

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?

Straw man again....Crock Pots can kill more than a machine gun...