This one is for the gun grabbers. Explain this.

[Ray From Cleveland]

Nationally we get more concealed carry and:
FBI: Violent crime increases for second straight year

NYC keeps strong gun control:
New York City Had Record-Low Crime Rate in 2016

From your post:

New York Police Department brass attribute some of decrease in violent crime to gang takedowns (the city saw its biggest bust in April 2016), and according to the New York Times, big reductions in gang-related shootings and killings helped drive the overall numbers down.

New York City’s relatively rosy stats stand out in stark contrast to other big cities, namely Chicago. The Windy City witnessed its bloodiest year in two decades: 762 murdered, and more than 4,300 shot. The increase is staggering. The homicide rate spiked 60 percent from 2015. The number of shootings leapt by more than 1,000. The number of people killed in Chicago is greater than that of New York and Los Angeles, combined.

New York City’s relatively rosy stats stand out in stark contrast to other big cities, namely Chicago. The Windy City witnessed its bloodiest year in two decades: 762 murdered, and more than 4,300 shot. The increase is staggering. The homicide rate spiked 60 percent from 2015. The number of shootings leapt by more than 1,000. The number of people killed in Chicago is greater than that of New York and Los Angeles, combined.

To summarize, the police attributed their decline not because of guns, but because of their success with getting gangs off the street. Chicago, Baltimore, LA???? Wait a minute! Aren't those places in big anti-gun states?

 

[Brain357]

Nationally we get more concealed carry and:
FBI: Violent crime increases for second straight year

NYC keeps strong gun control:
New York City Had Record-Low Crime Rate in 2016

From your post:

New York Police Department brass attribute some of decrease in violent crime to gang takedowns (the city saw its biggest bust in April 2016), and according to the New York Times, big reductions in gang-related shootings and killings helped drive the overall numbers down.

New York City’s relatively rosy stats stand out in stark contrast to other big cities, namely Chicago. The Windy City witnessed its bloodiest year in two decades: 762 murdered, and more than 4,300 shot. The increase is staggering. The homicide rate spiked 60 percent from 2015. The number of shootings leapt by more than 1,000. The number of people killed in Chicago is greater than that of New York and Los Angeles, combined.

New York City’s relatively rosy stats stand out in stark contrast to other big cities, namely Chicago. The Windy City witnessed its bloodiest year in two decades: 762 murdered, and more than 4,300 shot. The increase is staggering. The homicide rate spiked 60 percent from 2015. The number of shootings leapt by more than 1,000. The number of people killed in Chicago is greater than that of New York and Los Angeles, combined.

To summarize, the police attributed their decline not because of guns, but because of their success with getting gangs off the street. Chicago, Baltimore, LA???? Wait a minute! Aren't those places in big anti-gun states?

Yes they don't have a huge gun problem because they have good gun control. They don't have a bunch of idiots running around with guns causing criminals to also be more likely to have guns.

 

[RWNJ]

Wyoming has more guns per capita than any other state. They have open carry, and you do not need a permit to carry concealed. Yet the crime rate is 40 percent less than the national average, with some cities well below that. Some of them are among the safest places to live in America. So, if guns are the problem, as you believe, why aren't people being gunned down in the streets?

No body lives there.

The cows all work for free.

Dummy, there's no urban centers.

idiot.

Who cares what a gay Muslim sympathizer thinks? I sure don't.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Bullshit every crook knows that every year there are less and less people who have guns in their homes, so as far as your home is concerned it is safer for them to do anything they want to do.
You need to come up with something that is true and a real argument supporting your nonsense. This is just like dealing with children, it's to easy and that makes me lose interest. I mean every point you got is nonsense and easy to dump on. We need to keep these threads interesting.

You're board because you know you're wrong. If you're a criminal, are you going to risk your life breaking into a home because you learned that less homes have guns? You're going to take a chance that your target home is one of them? Give me a break.

Occupied home break-ins are rare, and the ones that do happen are usually to homes of very old or disabled people. Other times it's because somebody is so loaded on drugs they have no idea what they're doing.

Most criminals take extra precaution to make sure nobody is in the home they plan to rob. That's because they can die within seconds of entering the home and it's not worth it to them.

 

[Brain357]

Bullshit every crook knows that every year there are less and less people who have guns in their homes, so as far as your home is concerned it is safer for them to do anything they want to do.
You need to come up with something that is true and a real argument supporting your nonsense. This is just like dealing with children, it's to easy and that makes me lose interest. I mean every point you got is nonsense and easy to dump on. We need to keep these threads interesting.

You're board because you know you're wrong. If you're a criminal, are you going to risk your life breaking into a home because you learned that less homes have guns? You're going to take a chance that your target home is one of them? Give me a break.

Occupied home break-ins are rare, and the ones that do happen are usually to homes of very old or disabled people. Other times it's because somebody is so loaded on drugs they have no idea what they're doing.

Most criminals take extra precaution to make sure nobody is in the home they plan to rob. That's because they can die within seconds of entering the home and it's not worth it to them.

If you are a criminal in the usa would you be unarmed? Not with all the guns around. All you have done is arm more criminals.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Nationally we get more concealed carry and:
FBI: Violent crime increases for second straight year

NYC keeps strong gun control:
New York City Had Record-Low Crime Rate in 2016

From your post:

New York Police Department brass attribute some of decrease in violent crime to gang takedowns (the city saw its biggest bust in April 2016), and according to the New York Times, big reductions in gang-related shootings and killings helped drive the overall numbers down.

New York City’s relatively rosy stats stand out in stark contrast to other big cities, namely Chicago. The Windy City witnessed its bloodiest year in two decades: 762 murdered, and more than 4,300 shot. The increase is staggering. The homicide rate spiked 60 percent from 2015. The number of shootings leapt by more than 1,000. The number of people killed in Chicago is greater than that of New York and Los Angeles, combined.

New York City’s relatively rosy stats stand out in stark contrast to other big cities, namely Chicago. The Windy City witnessed its bloodiest year in two decades: 762 murdered, and more than 4,300 shot. The increase is staggering. The homicide rate spiked 60 percent from 2015. The number of shootings leapt by more than 1,000. The number of people killed in Chicago is greater than that of New York and Los Angeles, combined.

To summarize, the police attributed their decline not because of guns, but because of their success with getting gangs off the street. Chicago, Baltimore, LA???? Wait a minute! Aren't those places in big anti-gun states?

Yes they don't have a huge gun problem because they have good gun control. They don't have a bunch of idiots running around with guns causing criminals to also be more likely to have guns.

They don't have a huge problem with guns? Did you even read your own article or the paragraphs I highlighted?

Of course they are having problems with guns in spite of their laws.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Bullshit every crook knows that every year there are less and less people who have guns in their homes, so as far as your home is concerned it is safer for them to do anything they want to do.
You need to come up with something that is true and a real argument supporting your nonsense. This is just like dealing with children, it's to easy and that makes me lose interest. I mean every point you got is nonsense and easy to dump on. We need to keep these threads interesting.

You're board because you know you're wrong. If you're a criminal, are you going to risk your life breaking into a home because you learned that less homes have guns? You're going to take a chance that your target home is one of them? Give me a break.

Occupied home break-ins are rare, and the ones that do happen are usually to homes of very old or disabled people. Other times it's because somebody is so loaded on drugs they have no idea what they're doing.

Most criminals take extra precaution to make sure nobody is in the home they plan to rob. That's because they can die within seconds of entering the home and it's not worth it to them.

If you are a criminal in the usa would you be unarmed? Not with all the guns around. All you have done is arm more criminals.

THAT'S THE POINT!!! You can create all the laws you like, but you're never going to disarm the criminal. They will always have access to guns and will use them. All you'd really do is disarm the victims, and that only makes the problem worse.

 

[Brain357]

Bullshit every crook knows that every year there are less and less people who have guns in their homes, so as far as your home is concerned it is safer for them to do anything they want to do.
You need to come up with something that is true and a real argument supporting your nonsense. This is just like dealing with children, it's to easy and that makes me lose interest. I mean every point you got is nonsense and easy to dump on. We need to keep these threads interesting.

You're board because you know you're wrong. If you're a criminal, are you going to risk your life breaking into a home because you learned that less homes have guns? You're going to take a chance that your target home is one of them? Give me a break.

Occupied home break-ins are rare, and the ones that do happen are usually to homes of very old or disabled people. Other times it's because somebody is so loaded on drugs they have no idea what they're doing.

Most criminals take extra precaution to make sure nobody is in the home they plan to rob. That's because they can die within seconds of entering the home and it's not worth it to them.

If you are a criminal in the usa would you be unarmed? Not with all the guns around. All you have done is arm more criminals.

THAT'S THE POINT!!! You can create all the laws you like, but you're never going to disarm the criminal. They will always have access to guns and will use them. All you'd really do is disarm the victims, and that only makes the problem worse.

Actually arming the criminals makes it worse:
Why the US has the most mass shootings - CNN
US cops killed 100 times more than German police in 2015
Analysis | American toddlers are still shooting people on a weekly basis this year
Study: Road rage incidents involving guns are increasing

The “boyfriend loophole” in U.S. gun laws is costing women’s lives

More police officers die on the job in states with more guns

Fallen officers: 64 shot dead in the line of duty in 2016 - CNN

FBI: Violent crime increases for second straight year

 

[RWNJ]

Bullshit every crook knows that every year there are less and less people who have guns in their homes, so as far as your home is concerned it is safer for them to do anything they want to do.
You need to come up with something that is true and a real argument supporting your nonsense. This is just like dealing with children, it's to easy and that makes me lose interest. I mean every point you got is nonsense and easy to dump on. We need to keep these threads interesting.

You're board because you know you're wrong. If you're a criminal, are you going to risk your life breaking into a home because you learned that less homes have guns? You're going to take a chance that your target home is one of them? Give me a break.

Occupied home break-ins are rare, and the ones that do happen are usually to homes of very old or disabled people. Other times it's because somebody is so loaded on drugs they have no idea what they're doing.

Most criminals take extra precaution to make sure nobody is in the home they plan to rob. That's because they can die within seconds of entering the home and it's not worth it to them.

If you are a criminal in the usa would you be unarmed? Not with all the guns around. All you have done is arm more criminals.

THAT'S THE POINT!!! You can create all the laws you like, but you're never going to disarm the criminal. They will always have access to guns and will use them. All you'd really do is disarm the victims, and that only makes the problem worse.

The simple fact is that the people behind the gun grab want us to be helpless. There is no other explanation. They don't care about victims of gun violence. They actually want MORE victims since it helps them push their agenda. And they are standing on the graves of every one of those victims. Make no mistake. These people are evil and they hate and want to completely control everyone who wishes to live free.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Bullshit every crook knows that every year there are less and less people who have guns in their homes, so as far as your home is concerned it is safer for them to do anything they want to do.
You need to come up with something that is true and a real argument supporting your nonsense. This is just like dealing with children, it's to easy and that makes me lose interest. I mean every point you got is nonsense and easy to dump on. We need to keep these threads interesting.

You're board because you know you're wrong. If you're a criminal, are you going to risk your life breaking into a home because you learned that less homes have guns? You're going to take a chance that your target home is one of them? Give me a break.

Occupied home break-ins are rare, and the ones that do happen are usually to homes of very old or disabled people. Other times it's because somebody is so loaded on drugs they have no idea what they're doing.

Most criminals take extra precaution to make sure nobody is in the home they plan to rob. That's because they can die within seconds of entering the home and it's not worth it to them.

If you are a criminal in the usa would you be unarmed? Not with all the guns around. All you have done is arm more criminals.

THAT'S THE POINT!!! You can create all the laws you like, but you're never going to disarm the criminal. They will always have access to guns and will use them. All you'd really do is disarm the victims, and that only makes the problem worse.

The simple fact is that the people behind the gun grab want us to be helpless. There is no other explanation. They don't care about victims of gun violence. They actually want MORE victims since it helps them push their agenda. And they are standing on the graves of every one of those victims. Make no mistake. These people are evil and they hate and want to completely control everyone who wishes to live free.

It is about politics, that's for sure.

Democrats don't care about people having guns, they care about people using them for self-defense.

The Democrat party (like the Republican party) tries to constantly expand their base. Two of the largest groups for the Democrats are government dependents and victims. Democrats love victims and victims love Democrats.

Their desire is to outlaw guns because as we've been pointing out, you'll never disarm the criminal--only the law abiding citizen.

So eventually they create a society where only the criminals and police have guns. So what would happen? Crime would be rampant. The Democrats would have more victims than ever before. Everybody would be defenseless against armed criminals. So how do you fight big crime? The same way Democrats have fought Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Corporations, and that is with Big Government, and the only people behind big government are Democrats.

This isn't about guns, it's about Democrats creating more (voters) victims.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Bullshit every crook knows that every year there are less and less people who have guns in their homes, so as far as your home is concerned it is safer for them to do anything they want to do.
You need to come up with something that is true and a real argument supporting your nonsense. This is just like dealing with children, it's to easy and that makes me lose interest. I mean every point you got is nonsense and easy to dump on. We need to keep these threads interesting.

You're board because you know you're wrong. If you're a criminal, are you going to risk your life breaking into a home because you learned that less homes have guns? You're going to take a chance that your target home is one of them? Give me a break.

Occupied home break-ins are rare, and the ones that do happen are usually to homes of very old or disabled people. Other times it's because somebody is so loaded on drugs they have no idea what they're doing.

Most criminals take extra precaution to make sure nobody is in the home they plan to rob. That's because they can die within seconds of entering the home and it's not worth it to them.

If you are a criminal in the usa would you be unarmed? Not with all the guns around. All you have done is arm more criminals.

THAT'S THE POINT!!! You can create all the laws you like, but you're never going to disarm the criminal. They will always have access to guns and will use them. All you'd really do is disarm the victims, and that only makes the problem worse.

Actually arming the criminals makes it worse:
Why the US has the most mass shootings - CNN
US cops killed 100 times more than German police in 2015
Analysis | American toddlers are still shooting people on a weekly basis this year
Study: Road rage incidents involving guns are increasing

The “boyfriend loophole” in U.S. gun laws is costing women’s lives

More police officers die on the job in states with more guns

Fallen officers: 64 shot dead in the line of duty in 2016 - CNN

FBI: Violent crime increases for second straight year

We don't arm criminals. They break the laws and arm themselves.

 

[Brain357]

Bullshit every crook knows that every year there are less and less people who have guns in their homes, so as far as your home is concerned it is safer for them to do anything they want to do.
You need to come up with something that is true and a real argument supporting your nonsense. This is just like dealing with children, it's to easy and that makes me lose interest. I mean every point you got is nonsense and easy to dump on. We need to keep these threads interesting.

You're board because you know you're wrong. If you're a criminal, are you going to risk your life breaking into a home because you learned that less homes have guns? You're going to take a chance that your target home is one of them? Give me a break.

Occupied home break-ins are rare, and the ones that do happen are usually to homes of very old or disabled people. Other times it's because somebody is so loaded on drugs they have no idea what they're doing.

Most criminals take extra precaution to make sure nobody is in the home they plan to rob. That's because they can die within seconds of entering the home and it's not worth it to them.

If you are a criminal in the usa would you be unarmed? Not with all the guns around. All you have done is arm more criminals.

THAT'S THE POINT!!! You can create all the laws you like, but you're never going to disarm the criminal. They will always have access to guns and will use them. All you'd really do is disarm the victims, and that only makes the problem worse.

Actually arming the criminals makes it worse:
Why the US has the most mass shootings - CNN
US cops killed 100 times more than German police in 2015
Analysis | American toddlers are still shooting people on a weekly basis this year
Study: Road rage incidents involving guns are increasing

The “boyfriend loophole” in U.S. gun laws is costing women’s lives

More police officers die on the job in states with more guns

Fallen officers: 64 shot dead in the line of duty in 2016 - CNN

FBI: Violent crime increases for second straight year

We don't arm criminals. They break the laws and arm themselves.

Yes you do. You provide incentive for them to be armed. And well there is this too:
Up to 600,000 guns are stolen every year in the US – that's one every minute

 

[jbander]

The right wing itself is by far the biggest threat to the 2nd, with their policy of no regulations on Firearms. That above anything else will get it dumped because people who have brains knows that guns have to be regulated and will get in power and do just that, to shut stupid remarks from the Gun Bubbas.

What do you mean? No regulations on firearms...there are close to 20-40,000 regulations on guns in this country...what we don't have is a justice system that will keep violent gun offenders in jail for 30 years....

Where did I say there was no regulations. Lies and distortions are always better then facts with you people

 

[Reasonable]

Wyoming has more guns per capita than any other state. They have open carry, and you do not need a permit to carry concealed. Yet the crime rate is 40 percent less than the national average, with some cities well below that. Some of them are among the safest places to live in America. So, if guns are the problem, as you believe, why aren't people being gunned down in the streets?

The United States has more gun deaths than any other country. Connect the dots why.

 

[RWNJ]

Wyoming has more guns per capita than any other state. They have open carry, and you do not need a permit to carry concealed. Yet the crime rate is 40 percent less than the national average, with some cities well below that. Some of them are among the safest places to live in America. So, if guns are the problem, as you believe, why aren't people being gunned down in the streets?

The United States has more gun deaths than any other country. Connect the dots why.

Here's the real reason.

 

[jbander]

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.

Your completely wasting bandwidth with you nonsense, hell if you ever said something that makes sense, maybe one of us might have taken the time to look at your nonsense.

 

[RWNJ]

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.

Your completely wasting bandwidth with you nonsense, hell if you ever said something that makes sense, maybe one of us might have taken the time to look at your nonsense.

Nonsense? I notice that you didn't even try to refute what he said. So who's really talking nonsense? Here's a hint for you. Look in the mirror.

 

[jbander]

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

You don't think he would of if he could? That's the point I'm making.

You people are complete idiots there is no threat to the second amendment , there are just a lot regulations that need to be added. Tell me how there is a threat to the 2nd when I can buy and own and shoot a Machine gun and buy and shoot a piece of artillery with shells to put in my front yard on display. You are all idiots.

 

[jbander]

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.

Liberals don't have a problem with the guns themselves. Liberals just don't like us having the ability to protect ourselves with guns. Thats their real problem.

Stupid comments from the gun babbas I'm use to but this is a couple of steps above stupid.

 

[RWNJ]

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

You don't think he would of if he could? That's the point I'm making.

You people are complete idiots there is no threat to the second amendment , there are just a lot regulations that need to be added. Tell me how there is a threat to the 2nd when I can buy and own and shoot a Machine gun and buy and shoot a piece of artillery with shells to put in my front yard on display. You are all idiots.

You can buy a gun in New York, after jumping through countless legal hoops and paying through the nose for it, but you cannot get a concealed carry permit, and there is no open carry. In other words, you have to keep it in your home where it's no use to you if you're not there. The criminals know this, which is why New York has such a high crime rate. Now, if you allowed people to carry those guns, the crime rate would drop. Do you deny this? Please say yes. I could use a good laugh.