This one is for the gun grabbers. Explain this.

[iceberg]

i do think the background check system needs an enema and nothing should be done w/o due process as well.
i also believe that the ones passing these laws should be qualified to do so.

What's wrong with our background check system as it is now?

cause all i have to do is answer no to all but 1 question here in texas so no idea what that's about. then they run my SS# - just what are they looking for?

why are people opposed to looking into how we do background checks?

Well, it's because I understand liberals, that's why. Let me explain, and please excuse my lack of brevity here:

I was a kid when gay rights was introduced. Back then, they told us all they wanted was to be let out of the closet. So we did. Today they are forcing themselves into our military, forced us to accept their marriages in states that forbade it, and are adopting children.

I remember when the anti-smokers just wanted no smoking in movie theaters. That's all they claimed to have wanted, and they will be happy. Today smoking is forbidden in most public places. There are parks and beaches where smoking is prohibited. Nobody told the law makers that parks and beaches were outside. Now some places won't give you a job if you're a smoker, and nobody even makes a car or truck with ashtrays anymore.

I remember when the environmentalists insisted we get rid of lead in our gasoline. That's all they wanted, and they would be happy. Today we have spent trillions of dollars making everything "greener" and they are complaining now more than ever.

The point is, when it comes to liberal agendas, there is no "we just want X" Because after X comes Y, and after Y comes Z, then Z+, then Z++ and so on.

To put it another way, let's say Hillary won the presidency, and she filled the courts with leftist judges all the way up to the Supreme Court. Do you really believe for one minute our rights to own firearms would be protected in five years or so from now?

Yes obama was going to take all the guns. Funny

then you tell me - why did he try to ban green tipped ammo? what was the pure goal there?

 

[2aguy]

i do think the background check system needs an enema and nothing should be done w/o due process as well.
i also believe that the ones passing these laws should be qualified to do so.

What's wrong with our background check system as it is now?

cause all i have to do is answer no to all but 1 question here in texas so no idea what that's about. then they run my SS# - just what are they looking for?

why are people opposed to looking into how we do background checks?

Well, it's because I understand liberals, that's why. Let me explain, and please excuse my lack of brevity here:

I was a kid when gay rights was introduced. Back then, they told us all they wanted was to be let out of the closet. So we did. Today they are forcing themselves into our military, forced us to accept their marriages in states that forbade it, and are adopting children.

I remember when the anti-smokers just wanted no smoking in movie theaters. That's all they claimed to have wanted, and they will be happy. Today smoking is forbidden in most public places. There are parks and beaches where smoking is prohibited. Nobody told the law makers that parks and beaches were outside. Now some places won't give you a job if you're a smoker, and nobody even makes a car or truck with ashtrays anymore.

I remember when the environmentalists insisted we get rid of lead in our gasoline. That's all they wanted, and they would be happy. Today we have spent trillions of dollars making everything "greener" and they are complaining now more than ever.

The point is, when it comes to liberal agendas, there is no "we just want X" Because after X comes Y, and after Y comes Z, then Z+, then Z++ and so on.

To put it another way, let's say Hillary won the presidency, and she filled the courts with leftist judges all the way up to the Supreme Court. Do you really believe for one minute our rights to own firearms would be protected in five years or so from now?

and yep. i do agree that is a large part of why there is ZERO give from the gun side.

1) liberals don't know what they want to ban. if it looks scary, ban it. trouble is, they never define "Scary" and when they do, it changes to fit their mood.
2) they have zero knowledge that an AR15 is NOT an automatic weapon. hell, it wasn't even an "assault rifle" until liberals forces changing the meaning of words so they could be "right"
3) i don't trust obama for shit - when you say green tipped 223 is armor piercing you just told anyone with any knowledge at all what a fucktard you are. it's was all "if i cant get the gun i'll get the bullets" and nothing more.

so i do agree that if you want "common sense gun talk" you usually have to leave liberals out of it.

guess that just paints us into a corner and is what can be frustrating to me.

The only way to keep gun Rights...is to vote out democrats and whatever else the left wingers decide to call themselves in the future...

 

[Brain357]

i do think the background check system needs an enema and nothing should be done w/o due process as well.
i also believe that the ones passing these laws should be qualified to do so.

What's wrong with our background check system as it is now?

cause all i have to do is answer no to all but 1 question here in texas so no idea what that's about. then they run my SS# - just what are they looking for?

why are people opposed to looking into how we do background checks?

Well, it's because I understand liberals, that's why. Let me explain, and please excuse my lack of brevity here:

I was a kid when gay rights was introduced. Back then, they told us all they wanted was to be let out of the closet. So we did. Today they are forcing themselves into our military, forced us to accept their marriages in states that forbade it, and are adopting children.

I remember when the anti-smokers just wanted no smoking in movie theaters. That's all they claimed to have wanted, and they will be happy. Today smoking is forbidden in most public places. There are parks and beaches where smoking is prohibited. Nobody told the law makers that parks and beaches were outside. Now some places won't give you a job if you're a smoker, and nobody even makes a car or truck with ashtrays anymore.

I remember when the environmentalists insisted we get rid of lead in our gasoline. That's all they wanted, and they would be happy. Today we have spent trillions of dollars making everything "greener" and they are complaining now more than ever.

The point is, when it comes to liberal agendas, there is no "we just want X" Because after X comes Y, and after Y comes Z, then Z+, then Z++ and so on.

To put it another way, let's say Hillary won the presidency, and she filled the courts with leftist judges all the way up to the Supreme Court. Do you really believe for one minute our rights to own firearms would be protected in five years or so from now?

Yes obama was going to take all the guns. Funny

He appointed the judges who are going to do it for him...he didn't want to lose elections because of the gun control issue...so he back doored the gun control agenda using judges and justices...

I see it's really working..

 

[iceberg]

i do think the background check system needs an enema and nothing should be done w/o due process as well.
i also believe that the ones passing these laws should be qualified to do so.

What's wrong with our background check system as it is now?

cause all i have to do is answer no to all but 1 question here in texas so no idea what that's about. then they run my SS# - just what are they looking for?

why are people opposed to looking into how we do background checks?

Well, it's because I understand liberals, that's why. Let me explain, and please excuse my lack of brevity here:

I was a kid when gay rights was introduced. Back then, they told us all they wanted was to be let out of the closet. So we did. Today they are forcing themselves into our military, forced us to accept their marriages in states that forbade it, and are adopting children.

I remember when the anti-smokers just wanted no smoking in movie theaters. That's all they claimed to have wanted, and they will be happy. Today smoking is forbidden in most public places. There are parks and beaches where smoking is prohibited. Nobody told the law makers that parks and beaches were outside. Now some places won't give you a job if you're a smoker, and nobody even makes a car or truck with ashtrays anymore.

I remember when the environmentalists insisted we get rid of lead in our gasoline. That's all they wanted, and they would be happy. Today we have spent trillions of dollars making everything "greener" and they are complaining now more than ever.

The point is, when it comes to liberal agendas, there is no "we just want X" Because after X comes Y, and after Y comes Z, then Z+, then Z++ and so on.

To put it another way, let's say Hillary won the presidency, and she filled the courts with leftist judges all the way up to the Supreme Court. Do you really believe for one minute our rights to own firearms would be protected in five years or so from now?

and yep. i do agree that is a large part of why there is ZERO give from the gun side.

1) liberals don't know what they want to ban. if it looks scary, ban it. trouble is, they never define "Scary" and when they do, it changes to fit their mood.
2) they have zero knowledge that an AR15 is NOT an automatic weapon. hell, it wasn't even an "assault rifle" until liberals forces changing the meaning of words so they could be "right"
3) i don't trust obama for shit - when you say green tipped 223 is armor piercing you just told anyone with any knowledge at all what a fucktard you are. it's was all "if i cant get the gun i'll get the bullets" and nothing more.

so i do agree that if you want "common sense gun talk" you usually have to leave liberals out of it.

guess that just paints us into a corner and is what can be frustrating to me.

We need to ban high capacity magazines for mass killing. See Orlando and Vegas.

great. i'll buy a high capacity mag so i don't have to reload more. problem solved.

see almost any alaska reality show.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Wait! I need to check to see if my free speech license is expired before I comment on that!

can you check out a book w/o a permit?
as a responsible gun owner, would you just tell people to go buy what they want w/o any education or validation?

pretty sure you've got a license for the right to drive that car.

and last i saw, no one has ever killed 60 people and wounded 500 by shouting at them with words.

like i said - offer some solutions or better ways.

They have murdered 89 people and wounded 450 with a rental truck.....which only required a french drivers license and some cash.....

A license is a Literacy Test on the Right to self defense, and any fee to own or carry a gun is the equivalent of a Poll Tax....and both of those were unConstitutional for voting...and should be ruled the same for the 2nd Amendment.

and this would be why it will never change.

people are not even open to it.

now all the PRO GUN people think i'm out to get guns.

no we are not open to it

we are not about to ask permission for a right

so to be blunt

you can go fuck yourself on that

i'll bet you think i don't even own any guns.

if you don't want to talk about it, feel free to drop out of a thread talking about it.

i do not give a shit if you own guns or not

i am not about to start asking for permission for my rights

you can if you want that is your frikkin business

 

[2aguy]

i do think the background check system needs an enema and nothing should be done w/o due process as well.
i also believe that the ones passing these laws should be qualified to do so.

What's wrong with our background check system as it is now?

cause all i have to do is answer no to all but 1 question here in texas so no idea what that's about. then they run my SS# - just what are they looking for?

why are people opposed to looking into how we do background checks?

Well, it's because I understand liberals, that's why. Let me explain, and please excuse my lack of brevity here:

I was a kid when gay rights was introduced. Back then, they told us all they wanted was to be let out of the closet. So we did. Today they are forcing themselves into our military, forced us to accept their marriages in states that forbade it, and are adopting children.

I remember when the anti-smokers just wanted no smoking in movie theaters. That's all they claimed to have wanted, and they will be happy. Today smoking is forbidden in most public places. There are parks and beaches where smoking is prohibited. Nobody told the law makers that parks and beaches were outside. Now some places won't give you a job if you're a smoker, and nobody even makes a car or truck with ashtrays anymore.

I remember when the environmentalists insisted we get rid of lead in our gasoline. That's all they wanted, and they would be happy. Today we have spent trillions of dollars making everything "greener" and they are complaining now more than ever.

The point is, when it comes to liberal agendas, there is no "we just want X" Because after X comes Y, and after Y comes Z, then Z+, then Z++ and so on.

To put it another way, let's say Hillary won the presidency, and she filled the courts with leftist judges all the way up to the Supreme Court. Do you really believe for one minute our rights to own firearms would be protected in five years or so from now?

and yep. i do agree that is a large part of why there is ZERO give from the gun side.

1) liberals don't know what they want to ban. if it looks scary, ban it. trouble is, they never define "Scary" and when they do, it changes to fit their mood.
2) they have zero knowledge that an AR15 is NOT an automatic weapon. hell, it wasn't even an "assault rifle" until liberals forces changing the meaning of words so they could be "right"
3) i don't trust obama for shit - when you say green tipped 223 is armor piercing you just told anyone with any knowledge at all what a fucktard you are. it's was all "if i cant get the gun i'll get the bullets" and nothing more.

so i do agree that if you want "common sense gun talk" you usually have to leave liberals out of it.

guess that just paints us into a corner and is what can be frustrating to me.

We need to ban high capacity magazines for mass killing. See Orlando and Vegas.

And you already know that banning magazines is a useless...pointless gesture, simply meant to constrict gun Rights one more knotch....

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.

 

[iceberg]

can you check out a book w/o a permit?
as a responsible gun owner, would you just tell people to go buy what they want w/o any education or validation?

pretty sure you've got a license for the right to drive that car.

and last i saw, no one has ever killed 60 people and wounded 500 by shouting at them with words.

like i said - offer some solutions or better ways.

They have murdered 89 people and wounded 450 with a rental truck.....which only required a french drivers license and some cash.....

A license is a Literacy Test on the Right to self defense, and any fee to own or carry a gun is the equivalent of a Poll Tax....and both of those were unConstitutional for voting...and should be ruled the same for the 2nd Amendment.

and this would be why it will never change.

people are not even open to it.

now all the PRO GUN people think i'm out to get guns.

no we are not open to it

we are not about to ask permission for a right

so to be blunt

you can go fuck yourself on that

i'll bet you think i don't even own any guns.

if you don't want to talk about it, feel free to drop out of a thread talking about it.

i do not give a shit if you own guns or not

i am not about to start asking for permission for my rights

you can if you want that is your frikkin business

sounds like you don't wish to talk about current events around guns.

feel free to mosey on.

 

[2aguy]

What's wrong with our background check system as it is now?

cause all i have to do is answer no to all but 1 question here in texas so no idea what that's about. then they run my SS# - just what are they looking for?

why are people opposed to looking into how we do background checks?

Well, it's because I understand liberals, that's why. Let me explain, and please excuse my lack of brevity here:

I was a kid when gay rights was introduced. Back then, they told us all they wanted was to be let out of the closet. So we did. Today they are forcing themselves into our military, forced us to accept their marriages in states that forbade it, and are adopting children.

I remember when the anti-smokers just wanted no smoking in movie theaters. That's all they claimed to have wanted, and they will be happy. Today smoking is forbidden in most public places. There are parks and beaches where smoking is prohibited. Nobody told the law makers that parks and beaches were outside. Now some places won't give you a job if you're a smoker, and nobody even makes a car or truck with ashtrays anymore.

I remember when the environmentalists insisted we get rid of lead in our gasoline. That's all they wanted, and they would be happy. Today we have spent trillions of dollars making everything "greener" and they are complaining now more than ever.

The point is, when it comes to liberal agendas, there is no "we just want X" Because after X comes Y, and after Y comes Z, then Z+, then Z++ and so on.

To put it another way, let's say Hillary won the presidency, and she filled the courts with leftist judges all the way up to the Supreme Court. Do you really believe for one minute our rights to own firearms would be protected in five years or so from now?

Yes obama was going to take all the guns. Funny

He appointed the judges who are going to do it for him...he didn't want to lose elections because of the gun control issue...so he back doored the gun control agenda using judges and justices...

I see it's really working..

The 9th and especially the 4th Circuit ....that is where the biggest threats lie....

 

[Brain357]

i do think the background check system needs an enema and nothing should be done w/o due process as well.
i also believe that the ones passing these laws should be qualified to do so.

What's wrong with our background check system as it is now?

cause all i have to do is answer no to all but 1 question here in texas so no idea what that's about. then they run my SS# - just what are they looking for?

why are people opposed to looking into how we do background checks?

Well, it's because I understand liberals, that's why. Let me explain, and please excuse my lack of brevity here:

I was a kid when gay rights was introduced. Back then, they told us all they wanted was to be let out of the closet. So we did. Today they are forcing themselves into our military, forced us to accept their marriages in states that forbade it, and are adopting children.

I remember when the anti-smokers just wanted no smoking in movie theaters. That's all they claimed to have wanted, and they will be happy. Today smoking is forbidden in most public places. There are parks and beaches where smoking is prohibited. Nobody told the law makers that parks and beaches were outside. Now some places won't give you a job if you're a smoker, and nobody even makes a car or truck with ashtrays anymore.

I remember when the environmentalists insisted we get rid of lead in our gasoline. That's all they wanted, and they would be happy. Today we have spent trillions of dollars making everything "greener" and they are complaining now more than ever.

The point is, when it comes to liberal agendas, there is no "we just want X" Because after X comes Y, and after Y comes Z, then Z+, then Z++ and so on.

To put it another way, let's say Hillary won the presidency, and she filled the courts with leftist judges all the way up to the Supreme Court. Do you really believe for one minute our rights to own firearms would be protected in five years or so from now?

Yes obama was going to take all the guns. Funny

then you tell me - why did he try to ban green tipped ammo? what was the pure goal there?

Who needs armor piercing bullets? Regardless they aren't banned.

 

[iceberg]

What's wrong with our background check system as it is now?

cause all i have to do is answer no to all but 1 question here in texas so no idea what that's about. then they run my SS# - just what are they looking for?

why are people opposed to looking into how we do background checks?

Well, it's because I understand liberals, that's why. Let me explain, and please excuse my lack of brevity here:

I was a kid when gay rights was introduced. Back then, they told us all they wanted was to be let out of the closet. So we did. Today they are forcing themselves into our military, forced us to accept their marriages in states that forbade it, and are adopting children.

I remember when the anti-smokers just wanted no smoking in movie theaters. That's all they claimed to have wanted, and they will be happy. Today smoking is forbidden in most public places. There are parks and beaches where smoking is prohibited. Nobody told the law makers that parks and beaches were outside. Now some places won't give you a job if you're a smoker, and nobody even makes a car or truck with ashtrays anymore.

I remember when the environmentalists insisted we get rid of lead in our gasoline. That's all they wanted, and they would be happy. Today we have spent trillions of dollars making everything "greener" and they are complaining now more than ever.

The point is, when it comes to liberal agendas, there is no "we just want X" Because after X comes Y, and after Y comes Z, then Z+, then Z++ and so on.

To put it another way, let's say Hillary won the presidency, and she filled the courts with leftist judges all the way up to the Supreme Court. Do you really believe for one minute our rights to own firearms would be protected in five years or so from now?

and yep. i do agree that is a large part of why there is ZERO give from the gun side.

1) liberals don't know what they want to ban. if it looks scary, ban it. trouble is, they never define "Scary" and when they do, it changes to fit their mood.
2) they have zero knowledge that an AR15 is NOT an automatic weapon. hell, it wasn't even an "assault rifle" until liberals forces changing the meaning of words so they could be "right"
3) i don't trust obama for shit - when you say green tipped 223 is armor piercing you just told anyone with any knowledge at all what a fucktard you are. it's was all "if i cant get the gun i'll get the bullets" and nothing more.

so i do agree that if you want "common sense gun talk" you usually have to leave liberals out of it.

guess that just paints us into a corner and is what can be frustrating to me.

We need to ban high capacity magazines for mass killing. See Orlando and Vegas.

And you already know that banning magazines is a useless...pointless gesture, simply meant to constrict gun Rights one more knotch....

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.

i had a 150 round 223 mag that looks like a nutsack on my AR15.

too damn heavy to ever consider using. reliability? meh. but it was given to me and it looked cool. when i sold my AR that helped me get more $ but it was useless for functionality.

 

[iceberg]

What's wrong with our background check system as it is now?

cause all i have to do is answer no to all but 1 question here in texas so no idea what that's about. then they run my SS# - just what are they looking for?

why are people opposed to looking into how we do background checks?

Well, it's because I understand liberals, that's why. Let me explain, and please excuse my lack of brevity here:

I was a kid when gay rights was introduced. Back then, they told us all they wanted was to be let out of the closet. So we did. Today they are forcing themselves into our military, forced us to accept their marriages in states that forbade it, and are adopting children.

I remember when the anti-smokers just wanted no smoking in movie theaters. That's all they claimed to have wanted, and they will be happy. Today smoking is forbidden in most public places. There are parks and beaches where smoking is prohibited. Nobody told the law makers that parks and beaches were outside. Now some places won't give you a job if you're a smoker, and nobody even makes a car or truck with ashtrays anymore.

I remember when the environmentalists insisted we get rid of lead in our gasoline. That's all they wanted, and they would be happy. Today we have spent trillions of dollars making everything "greener" and they are complaining now more than ever.

The point is, when it comes to liberal agendas, there is no "we just want X" Because after X comes Y, and after Y comes Z, then Z+, then Z++ and so on.

To put it another way, let's say Hillary won the presidency, and she filled the courts with leftist judges all the way up to the Supreme Court. Do you really believe for one minute our rights to own firearms would be protected in five years or so from now?

Yes obama was going to take all the guns. Funny

then you tell me - why did he try to ban green tipped ammo? what was the pure goal there?

Who needs armor piercing bullets? Regardless they aren't banned.

regardless - they are not armor piercing.

i rest my case.

 

[jon_berzerk]

so again - shall we use only the constitution as it sits now, and with the environment of 1776, to determine what rights we enjoy today.

yes words mean something but don't expect me to get literal when it suits you then vague at the same time. define your criteria and let's go. if your criteria is "changing to suit the situation" then i don't see a point in playing anymore.

No...but there is a process to change the Constitution.....you can add or subtract Rights using that method.

didn't say what methods i'd use, just what i'd like to do. all of it is open for discussion sure. but most people pro-gun just say NO and walk away behind the 2nd amendment.

we can either address the problem together or we can keep ignoring it til a hand is forced. one or the other is likely to happen.

I gave my solutions...they work, they focus on actual criminals, the require no new paperwork, and they don't target law abiding gun owners....they don't need new background checks, gun registration to work.......

and i'd take that as a starting point also. easy.

i just don't think it will ever be *that easy* unfortunately. and when you have mental people who know they're gonna die when done, now what?

some questions just don't have "good" answers and that is the hardest part to understand.

You can't stop mass shooters by going after law abiding gun owners....

The police knew about the Sandy Hook shooter's threats to kill teachers and students before it happened.....that was the problem.......

Have you seen the coverage of the new FBI report on Sandy Hook?

the police knew about the Sandy Hook shooter's threats to kill teachers and students before it happened.....that was the problem.......


that is true

and all to common

that we find this out after the fact

 

[Brain357]

cause all i have to do is answer no to all but 1 question here in texas so no idea what that's about. then they run my SS# - just what are they looking for?

why are people opposed to looking into how we do background checks?

Well, it's because I understand liberals, that's why. Let me explain, and please excuse my lack of brevity here:

I was a kid when gay rights was introduced. Back then, they told us all they wanted was to be let out of the closet. So we did. Today they are forcing themselves into our military, forced us to accept their marriages in states that forbade it, and are adopting children.

I remember when the anti-smokers just wanted no smoking in movie theaters. That's all they claimed to have wanted, and they will be happy. Today smoking is forbidden in most public places. There are parks and beaches where smoking is prohibited. Nobody told the law makers that parks and beaches were outside. Now some places won't give you a job if you're a smoker, and nobody even makes a car or truck with ashtrays anymore.

I remember when the environmentalists insisted we get rid of lead in our gasoline. That's all they wanted, and they would be happy. Today we have spent trillions of dollars making everything "greener" and they are complaining now more than ever.

The point is, when it comes to liberal agendas, there is no "we just want X" Because after X comes Y, and after Y comes Z, then Z+, then Z++ and so on.

To put it another way, let's say Hillary won the presidency, and she filled the courts with leftist judges all the way up to the Supreme Court. Do you really believe for one minute our rights to own firearms would be protected in five years or so from now?

Yes obama was going to take all the guns. Funny

He appointed the judges who are going to do it for him...he didn't want to lose elections because of the gun control issue...so he back doored the gun control agenda using judges and justices...

I see it's really working..

The 9th and especially the 4th Circuit ....that is where the biggest threats lie....

Yes the threat of fewer dead cops and less dead in mass shootings. Keep fighting man!

 

[jon_berzerk]

They have murdered 89 people and wounded 450 with a rental truck.....which only required a french drivers license and some cash.....

A license is a Literacy Test on the Right to self defense, and any fee to own or carry a gun is the equivalent of a Poll Tax....and both of those were unConstitutional for voting...and should be ruled the same for the 2nd Amendment.

and this would be why it will never change.

people are not even open to it.

now all the PRO GUN people think i'm out to get guns.

no we are not open to it

we are not about to ask permission for a right

so to be blunt

you can go fuck yourself on that

i'll bet you think i don't even own any guns.

if you don't want to talk about it, feel free to drop out of a thread talking about it.

i do not give a shit if you own guns or not

i am not about to start asking for permission for my rights

you can if you want that is your frikkin business

sounds like you don't wish to talk about current events around guns.

feel free to mosey on.

--LOL

i am posting about it

i will not ask for permission for a right

unlike you subject

 

[iceberg]

and this would be why it will never change.

people are not even open to it.

now all the PRO GUN people think i'm out to get guns.

no we are not open to it

we are not about to ask permission for a right

so to be blunt

you can go fuck yourself on that

i'll bet you think i don't even own any guns.

if you don't want to talk about it, feel free to drop out of a thread talking about it.

i do not give a shit if you own guns or not

i am not about to start asking for permission for my rights

you can if you want that is your frikkin business

sounds like you don't wish to talk about current events around guns.

feel free to mosey on.

--LOL

i am posting about it

i will not ask for permission for a right

unlike you subject

have fun man.

 

[Brain357]

cause all i have to do is answer no to all but 1 question here in texas so no idea what that's about. then they run my SS# - just what are they looking for?

why are people opposed to looking into how we do background checks?

Well, it's because I understand liberals, that's why. Let me explain, and please excuse my lack of brevity here:

I was a kid when gay rights was introduced. Back then, they told us all they wanted was to be let out of the closet. So we did. Today they are forcing themselves into our military, forced us to accept their marriages in states that forbade it, and are adopting children.

I remember when the anti-smokers just wanted no smoking in movie theaters. That's all they claimed to have wanted, and they will be happy. Today smoking is forbidden in most public places. There are parks and beaches where smoking is prohibited. Nobody told the law makers that parks and beaches were outside. Now some places won't give you a job if you're a smoker, and nobody even makes a car or truck with ashtrays anymore.

I remember when the environmentalists insisted we get rid of lead in our gasoline. That's all they wanted, and they would be happy. Today we have spent trillions of dollars making everything "greener" and they are complaining now more than ever.

The point is, when it comes to liberal agendas, there is no "we just want X" Because after X comes Y, and after Y comes Z, then Z+, then Z++ and so on.

To put it another way, let's say Hillary won the presidency, and she filled the courts with leftist judges all the way up to the Supreme Court. Do you really believe for one minute our rights to own firearms would be protected in five years or so from now?

Yes obama was going to take all the guns. Funny

then you tell me - why did he try to ban green tipped ammo? what was the pure goal there?

Who needs armor piercing bullets? Regardless they aren't banned.

regardless - they are not armor piercing.

i rest my case.

Was it banned? I rest my case.

 

[iceberg]

Well, it's because I understand liberals, that's why. Let me explain, and please excuse my lack of brevity here:

I was a kid when gay rights was introduced. Back then, they told us all they wanted was to be let out of the closet. So we did. Today they are forcing themselves into our military, forced us to accept their marriages in states that forbade it, and are adopting children.

I remember when the anti-smokers just wanted no smoking in movie theaters. That's all they claimed to have wanted, and they will be happy. Today smoking is forbidden in most public places. There are parks and beaches where smoking is prohibited. Nobody told the law makers that parks and beaches were outside. Now some places won't give you a job if you're a smoker, and nobody even makes a car or truck with ashtrays anymore.

I remember when the environmentalists insisted we get rid of lead in our gasoline. That's all they wanted, and they would be happy. Today we have spent trillions of dollars making everything "greener" and they are complaining now more than ever.

The point is, when it comes to liberal agendas, there is no "we just want X" Because after X comes Y, and after Y comes Z, then Z+, then Z++ and so on.

To put it another way, let's say Hillary won the presidency, and she filled the courts with leftist judges all the way up to the Supreme Court. Do you really believe for one minute our rights to own firearms would be protected in five years or so from now?

Yes obama was going to take all the guns. Funny

then you tell me - why did he try to ban green tipped ammo? what was the pure goal there?

Who needs armor piercing bullets? Regardless they aren't banned.

regardless - they are not armor piercing.

i rest my case.

Was it banned? I rest my case.

my point is they tried to lie about what the ammos purpose was for in order to ban the ammo making the guns pointless.

dance, jojo. i'm out.

 

[Brain357]

Yes obama was going to take all the guns. Funny

then you tell me - why did he try to ban green tipped ammo? what was the pure goal there?

Who needs armor piercing bullets? Regardless they aren't banned.

regardless - they are not armor piercing.

i rest my case.

Was it banned? I rest my case.

my point is they tried to lie about what the ammos purpose was for in order to ban the ammo making the guns pointless.

dance, jojo. i'm out.

My point was nothing banned. No matter how paranoid the gun nuts are.

 

[iceberg]

then you tell me - why did he try to ban green tipped ammo? what was the pure goal there?

Who needs armor piercing bullets? Regardless they aren't banned.

regardless - they are not armor piercing.

i rest my case.

Was it banned? I rest my case.

my point is they tried to lie about what the ammos purpose was for in order to ban the ammo making the guns pointless.

dance, jojo. i'm out.

My point was nothing banned. No matter how paranoid the gun nuts are.

my point is, was and forever will be that as long as he's willing to TRY and ban things by lying about them, he's a fucking liar and if a fucking liar says "i'm not coming after your guns" -

well i don't believe them.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We need to ban high capacity magazines for mass killing. See Orlando and Vegas.

And that would accomplish just what exactly?