Question for all "gun" control advocates.

[Brain357]

What I love is when a gun grabber laments "BUT it is for the children" " don't you care about the children?" And they support abortion.

Kids shot and killed must have so much pain and fear. Very sad.

You don't get to play "it is for the children" when you support the unrestricted murder of 3000 a day.

So you prefer children be born to parents who don't want them? How do you think that works out for children?
Police: Jerseyville couple starved six-year-old son to death - The Telegraph

Does that make you happy? Better they suffer?

 

[Nosmo King]

Nothing will change until republicans start to love their children more than the NRA

Forgot about this comment.

THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!

That sentiment echoes sincerely around Newtown, Connecticut. Sadly, it rings with despicable irony here.

Think of all those kids who would have been saved if just ONE person in that school was armed.

THINK OF THE CHILDREN and repeal the school bans.

I can't help but think of a school teacher packing heat. And how utterly ridiculous that is. Teachers are there to teach.

In March of 1981 four men were wounded on the streets of Washington D.C. in the middle of the day. Two of those men were armed. A third shuddered a head wound and was rendered paraplegic. The fourth was serving as President of the United States. Every one of them was surrounded by the best armed, best trained cadre of security personnel in history. All those guns did not prevent the shooting.

How would your fourth grade teacher fare in a shooting situation compared to the Secret Service?

That is a completely different scenario, and does nothing but bolster the point. Imagine if nobody was armed but Hinkley.

An active shooter should never have time to calmly reload and systematically execute dozens of unarmed people. Someone must be allowed to shoot back.

Diane Frankenstein said it herself that there is no way to prevent mass shootings. The ONLY way to limit loss of life is armed resistance.

And, I would rather have a mildly competent teacher shooting back than NOBODY DOING A GODDAMN THING while the asshole calmly walks up to my kid with zero resistance, and aims point-blank a my kid's head. ANY resistance makes such a scenario less likely.

People were unarmed in many mass shootings and yet they took down the assailant. Pouring more bullets into a classroom cannot be regarded as a responsible move.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You mistake me for someone who gives a fuck when idiots pass stupid laws that criminals (surprisingly) ignore.

Well, you PROVE that you're an idiot.....

Why pass speeding laws?
Why pass drug laws ?
(and, most importantly) Why pass money-laundering laws?............LOL

Good thing we have speeding laws. Otherwise, there would be speeding.


Oh, you're right. We just need to ban cars.


We should make murder illegal.



...and who is the idiot?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

People were unarmed in many mass shootings and yet they took down the assailant. Pouring more bullets into a classroom cannot be regarded as a responsible mo

Right. Because bullets will only kill kids, not the shooter.


We should get the mass shooter to bring fewer bullets. Make it a law. No more than 20 bullets per mass shooting.

Also, if given the choice, would you rather take down an active shooter with harsh language or bullets?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

One person was armed at Orlando. Didn't help.

Oh, well, if that's true, I guess you're right. We should just give up on that whole self-defense thing.


And isn't that an argument that more than one person in 250 people should be armed in the event of a mass shooting?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So you prefer children be born to parents who don't want them? How do you think that works out for children?
Police: Jerseyville couple starved six-year-old son to death - The Telegraph

Does that make you happy? Better they suffer?

Not me. Abort those unwanted spawn. Unwanted pregnancy is involuntary servitude. Unwanted children are involuntary servitude. Kill those motherfuckers. Make parental infantacide legal up to age 3! Fuck it.

I am consistently for freedom. Everyone should know that about me.

 

[Nosmo King]

People were unarmed in many mass shootings and yet they took down the assailant. Pouring more bullets into a classroom cannot be regarded as a responsible mo

Right. Because bullets will only kill kids, not the shooter.


We should get the mass shooter to bring fewer bullets. Make it a law. No more than 20 bullets per mass shooting.

Also, if given the choice, would you rather take down an active shooter with harsh language or bullets?

I know you want to flood our streets with guns and flying bullets. What a grand vision that would be!

I'll tell ya what. Let's pass a law that everyone, and I mean everyone, be armed 24 hours a day. Everyone is legally required to carry a weapon. No limits on mental, emotional or physical competence. The Right of the people shall not be infringed.

And everywhere. Operating rooms, airlines, churches, schools and shopping malls. Guns for everyone!

Would that make you safer? Happy? Proud?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

People were unarmed in many mass shootings and yet they took down the assailant. Pouring more bullets into a classroom cannot be regarded as a responsible mo

Right. Because bullets will only kill kids, not the shooter.


We should get the mass shooter to bring fewer bullets. Make it a law. No more than 20 bullets per mass shooting.

Also, if given the choice, would you rather take down an active shooter with harsh language or bullets?

I know you want to flood our streets with guns and flying bullets. What a grand vision that would be!

I'll tell ya what. Let's pass a law that everyone, and I mean everyone, be armed 24 hours a day. Everyone is legally required to carry a weapon. No limits on mental, emotional or physical competence. The Right of the people shall not be infringed.

And everywhere. Operating rooms, airlines, churches, schools and shopping malls. Guns for everyone!

Would that make you safer? Happy? Proud?

I would be happy if everyone was voluntarily armed. Just because people have guns doesn't mean bullets will fly. I think you grossly underestimate the power of the self-preservation instinct. Drawing one's weapon tends to make that person a threat, and therby a target. Better have a damn good reason for yanking that smokewagon, because it could be deadly.

 

[Nosmo King]

People were unarmed in many mass shootings and yet they took down the assailant. Pouring more bullets into a classroom cannot be regarded as a responsible mo

Right. Because bullets will only kill kids, not the shooter.


We should get the mass shooter to bring fewer bullets. Make it a law. No more than 20 bullets per mass shooting.

Also, if given the choice, would you rather take down an active shooter with harsh language or bullets?

I know you want to flood our streets with guns and flying bullets. What a grand vision that would be!

I'll tell ya what. Let's pass a law that everyone, and I mean everyone, be armed 24 hours a day. Everyone is legally required to carry a weapon. No limits on mental, emotional or physical competence. The Right of the people shall not be infringed.

And everywhere. Operating rooms, airlines, churches, schools and shopping malls. Guns for everyone!

Would that make you safer? Happy? Proud?

I would be happy if everyone was voluntarily armed. Just because people have guns doesn't mean bullets will fly. I think you grossly underestimate the power of the self-preservation instinct. Drawing one's weapon tends to make that person a threat, and therby a target. Better have a damn good reason for yanking that smokewagon, because it could be deadly.

Why not armed by mandate? Should we eliminate any and all restrictions on gun ownership for each and every American? Should high school students open carry at school?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Why not armed by mandate? Should we eliminate any and all restrictions on gun ownership for each and every American? Should high school students open carry at school

Shove your bullshit hyperbole right up your ass.

An armed mandate is not liberty. I am not even going to dignify the rest of that tripe.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Nothing will change until republicans start to love their children more than the NRA

Forgot about this comment.

THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!

That sentiment echoes sincerely around Newtown, Connecticut. Sadly, it rings with despicable irony here.

Think of all those kids who would have been saved if just ONE person in that school was armed.

THINK OF THE CHILDREN and repeal the school bans.

I can't help but think of a school teacher packing heat. And how utterly ridiculous that is. Teachers are there to teach.

In March of 1981 four men were wounded on the streets of Washington D.C. in the middle of the day. Two of those men were armed. A third shuddered a head wound and was rendered paraplegic. The fourth was serving as President of the United States. Every one of them was surrounded by the best armed, best trained cadre of security personnel in history. All those guns did not prevent the shooting.

How would your fourth grade teacher fare in a shooting situation compared to the Secret Service?

Most active shooters are cowards and flee, or kill themselves, as soon as someone shoots back!

Schools are now much better able to handle situations like Newtown than they were back then.

When I taught in Florida, I had two deputy sheriffs on the campus at all times.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Nothing will change until republicans start to love their children more than the NRA

Forgot about this comment.

THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!

That sentiment echoes sincerely around Newtown, Connecticut. Sadly, it rings with despicable irony here.

Think of all those kids who would have been saved if just ONE person in that school was armed.

THINK OF THE CHILDREN and repeal the school bans.

I can't help but think of a school teacher packing heat. And how utterly ridiculous that is. Teachers are there to teach.

In March of 1981 four men were wounded on the streets of Washington D.C. in the middle of the day. Two of those men were armed. A third shuddered a head wound and was rendered paraplegic. The fourth was serving as President of the United States. Every one of them was surrounded by the best armed, best trained cadre of security personnel in history. All those guns did not prevent the shooting.

How would your fourth grade teacher fare in a shooting situation compared to the Secret Service?

How many of them died? Answer: None!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Forgot about this comment.

THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!

That sentiment echoes sincerely around Newtown, Connecticut. Sadly, it rings with despicable irony here.

Think of all those kids who would have been saved if just ONE person in that school was armed.

THINK OF THE CHILDREN and repeal the school bans.

I can't help but think of a school teacher packing heat. And how utterly ridiculous that is. Teachers are there to teach.

In March of 1981 four men were wounded on the streets of Washington D.C. in the middle of the day. Two of those men were armed. A third shuddered a head wound and was rendered paraplegic. The fourth was serving as President of the United States. Every one of them was surrounded by the best armed, best trained cadre of security personnel in history. All those guns did not prevent the shooting.

How would your fourth grade teacher fare in a shooting situation compared to the Secret Service?

That is a completely different scenario, and does nothing but bolster the point. Imagine if nobody was armed but Hinkley.

An active shooter should never have time to calmly reload and systematically execute dozens of unarmed people. Someone must be allowed to shoot back.

Diane Frankenstein said it herself that there is no way to prevent mass shootings. The ONLY way to limit loss of life is armed resistance.

And, I would rather have a mildly competent teacher shooting back than NOBODY DOING A GODDAMN THING while the asshole calmly walks up to my kid with zero resistance, and aims point-blank a my kid's head. ANY resistance makes such a scenario less likely.

People were unarmed in many mass shootings and yet they took down the assailant. Pouring more bullets into a classroom cannot be regarded as a responsible move.

Let me carry a gun in my classroom and I guarantee the shooter will not hurt anyone.

 

[Brain357]

That sentiment echoes sincerely around Newtown, Connecticut. Sadly, it rings with despicable irony here.

Think of all those kids who would have been saved if just ONE person in that school was armed.

THINK OF THE CHILDREN and repeal the school bans.

I can't help but think of a school teacher packing heat. And how utterly ridiculous that is. Teachers are there to teach.

In March of 1981 four men were wounded on the streets of Washington D.C. in the middle of the day. Two of those men were armed. A third shuddered a head wound and was rendered paraplegic. The fourth was serving as President of the United States. Every one of them was surrounded by the best armed, best trained cadre of security personnel in history. All those guns did not prevent the shooting.

How would your fourth grade teacher fare in a shooting situation compared to the Secret Service?

That is a completely different scenario, and does nothing but bolster the point. Imagine if nobody was armed but Hinkley.

An active shooter should never have time to calmly reload and systematically execute dozens of unarmed people. Someone must be allowed to shoot back.

Diane Frankenstein said it herself that there is no way to prevent mass shootings. The ONLY way to limit loss of life is armed resistance.

And, I would rather have a mildly competent teacher shooting back than NOBODY DOING A GODDAMN THING while the asshole calmly walks up to my kid with zero resistance, and aims point-blank a my kid's head. ANY resistance makes such a scenario less likely.

People were unarmed in many mass shootings and yet they took down the assailant. Pouring more bullets into a classroom cannot be regarded as a responsible move.

Let me carry a gun in my classroom and I guarantee the shooter will not hurt anyone.

Orlando had an off duty cop for security. Didn't matter.

 

[2aguy]

Think of all those kids who would have been saved if just ONE person in that school was armed.

THINK OF THE CHILDREN and repeal the school bans.

I can't help but think of a school teacher packing heat. And how utterly ridiculous that is. Teachers are there to teach.

In March of 1981 four men were wounded on the streets of Washington D.C. in the middle of the day. Two of those men were armed. A third shuddered a head wound and was rendered paraplegic. The fourth was serving as President of the United States. Every one of them was surrounded by the best armed, best trained cadre of security personnel in history. All those guns did not prevent the shooting.

How would your fourth grade teacher fare in a shooting situation compared to the Secret Service?

That is a completely different scenario, and does nothing but bolster the point. Imagine if nobody was armed but Hinkley.

An active shooter should never have time to calmly reload and systematically execute dozens of unarmed people. Someone must be allowed to shoot back.

Diane Frankenstein said it herself that there is no way to prevent mass shootings. The ONLY way to limit loss of life is armed resistance.

And, I would rather have a mildly competent teacher shooting back than NOBODY DOING A GODDAMN THING while the asshole calmly walks up to my kid with zero resistance, and aims point-blank a my kid's head. ANY resistance makes such a scenario less likely.

People were unarmed in many mass shootings and yet they took down the assailant. Pouring more bullets into a classroom cannot be regarded as a responsible move.

Let me carry a gun in my classroom and I guarantee the shooter will not hurt anyone.

Orlando had an off duty cop for security. Didn't matter.

And of course, you lie by omission....the off duty guard ran away to call for help, leaving over 300 unarmed people in a gun free zone at the mercy of the shooter.......

In the Texas shooting, one man, armed with an AR-15 rifle stopped the killer and saved 26 lives......the other 26 died in the gun free zone....because they didn't have any guns to stop the killer.....

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Orlando had an off duty cop for security. Didn't matter.

So, are you arguing that unarmed masses are NOT more likely to survive a mass shooting if someone in the mass is armed? Seriously? You're going with that argument.

You are really making the argument that one who is armed is no more likely to survive or stop an armed assault than one who is unarmed?

 

[BuckToothMoron]

With this recent church shooting and 26 dead the controversy regarding "gun control" comes up.
As more information about the shooter comes out the more it appears "gun control" measures weren't suffice.
So given the rise especially from the MSM clamoring for more "gun control"... what is the mechanism that would entirely eliminate ONCE and for ALL theses kinds of incidents done with "guns"?
Do the advocates for "gun control" want ALL guns confiscated? No more "gun" sales?
Explain what the ultimate solution to 100% elimination of future events like what happened in Texas on Sunday, in Las Vegas, et.al. mass "shootings" would be.

I really honestly want a dialogue as to how to 100% eradicate future mass shootings.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/mass-shootings-in-america-a-historical-review/5355990
View attachment 159282

View attachment 159283

False premise! There is no absolute solution to eliminate all shootings.

 

[2aguy]

No one wants to ban all guns.

The problem is firepower, both speed and magazine size.

The other problem is that the NRA does not want background checks. The republicans claim they do, but never allocate the funds to get er done. This is how scumbags escape the background checks.

There are no background checks on so called gun shows or when a good guy with a gun needs to get rid of his old toys.

I am willing to bet every gun used in a crime came from a good guy with a gun who got rid of it.

Nothing will change until republicans start to love their children more than the NRA

and you are wrong.....all sales through gun dealers require a federal background check, even at gun shows.

There are more than enough funds to fix the background check system....you actually have to arrest criminals, and make sure that Air Force clerks press "send" to get criminal records through to the FBI......

and no....firepower isn't a problem.....gun free zones where only the killer has a gun is a problem...the Texas church shooter was stopped by one man with an AR-15 of his own.....26 lives were saved. 26 lives were lost in the gun free zone of the church....where no one had a gun.....

and magazine size has no bearing on the deaths.....Here...read this and learn about magazine size and mass shootings...

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

-----

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

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

 

[2aguy]

With this recent church shooting and 26 dead the controversy regarding "gun control" comes up.
As more information about the shooter comes out the more it appears "gun control" measures weren't suffice.
So given the rise especially from the MSM clamoring for more "gun control"... what is ns"?
Do the advocates for "gun control" want ALL guns confiscated? No more "gun" sales?
Explain what the ultimate solution to 100% elimination of future events like what happened in Texas on Sunday, in Las Vegas, et.al. mass "shootings" would be.

I really honestly want a dialogue as to how to 100% eradicate future mass shootings.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/mass-shootings-in-america-a-historical-review/5355990
View attachment 159282

View attachment 159283

The premise of your question calls for "the ultimate solution to 100% elimination of future events like what happened in Texas on Sunday, in Las Vegas".

That is a false and misleading premise for the arguments concerning gun control. No law is a panacea. We have enacted laws to reduce the incidence of drunk driving, yet it persists. We have enacted laws to reduce violent crime, yet it persists. Don't allow the search for perfection to impede the necessity for the good.

Don't allow your irrational fear of rifles to lead to banning 16 million rifles in private hands that were never used in a crime or to commit murder.....and in fact saved 26 lives last weekend.....

 

[2aguy]

A truck driving down bike path in NY killed 8 people!

In Las Vegas 58 people were killed and 489 were injured in LESS than SEVEN minutes........NO truck involved in THAT massacre.

And in Nice, France, 89 people were murdered and over 450 injured...no gun involved in that......

and knives murder over 1,500 people every single year...no guns involved in those deaths either.......

And cars kill over 35,000 people every single year...without a gun to be found.....