What is the republican solution to ending mass shootings? Why don’t they ever offer solutions?

[Doc1]

It makes no sense. Changing a magazine on any gun does not take that long. Here is a video of how fast a magazine can be changed on a handgun; pay attention to the accuracy as well:

If they are equivalent to the AR-15 then why do you need them?

Because they are customizable, easy to shoot for all sizes of shooters especially women and the only reason you twits want the AR-15 so bad is that if you establish the precedent that the AR-15 rifle is dangerous because it is a semi automatic weapon....then you can come back and demand all other semi automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns, as well as revolvers be banned because as we tell you, and you will state later.....they all operate the same way.

You left out the mos important. It's the one designed to do the most damage in the fastest time. And you left out that it was designed as a combat rifle. Then you left out that there are much better alternatives. You left out that it has the body count record for mass shooters. You left out that it's easy to conceal and transport it.

I don't advocate outright banning of the AR but I do advocate better controls on it through common sense firearms regulation.

The first requirement of common sense firearms regulation is common sense. Since none of the proposed "common sense" gun regulations would prevent another mass murder, they are far from common sense regulation.

No regulation has kept a single gun out of the hands of a gang banger or a potential mass murderer. Adding more regulations will not solve the firearm murder rate. Mainly, since those determined to do the murders don't give a tinker's damn about your regulations. The only people affected are honest, law abiding citizens.

Next, is this over fascination with numbers. One dead, no big deal, ten dead, big deal. Yet, ten dead is nothing more than one dead, ten times over. People die individually, and are mourned individually.

All common sense gun regs do is minimize the body count and make it harder for stupid people to kill so easily. There is quite a bit involved in those common sense regs but you will find each and every one of them an affront to your "Rights".

The problem you have is the phrase "common sense". Who decides what that is?

 

[RealDave]

If they are equivalent to the AR-15 then why do you need them?

Because they are customizable, easy to shoot for all sizes of shooters especially women and the only reason you twits want the AR-15 so bad is that if you establish the precedent that the AR-15 rifle is dangerous because it is a semi automatic weapon....then you can come back and demand all other semi automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns, as well as revolvers be banned because as we tell you, and you will state later.....they all operate the same way.

You left out the mos important. It's the one designed to do the most damage in the fastest time. And you left out that it was designed as a combat rifle. Then you left out that there are much better alternatives. You left out that it has the body count record for mass shooters. You left out that it's easy to conceal and transport it.

I don't advocate outright banning of the AR but I do advocate better controls on it through common sense firearms regulation.

The first requirement of common sense firearms regulation is common sense. Since none of the proposed "common sense" gun regulations would prevent another mass murder, they are far from common sense regulation.

No regulation has kept a single gun out of the hands of a gang banger or a potential mass murderer. Adding more regulations will not solve the firearm murder rate. Mainly, since those determined to do the murders don't give a tinker's damn about your regulations. The only people affected are honest, law abiding citizens.

Next, is this over fascination with numbers. One dead, no big deal, ten dead, big deal. Yet, ten dead is nothing more than one dead, ten times over. People die individually, and are mourned individually.

All common sense gun regs do is minimize the body count and make it harder for stupid people to kill so easily. There is quite a bit involved in those common sense regs but you will find each and every one of them an affront to your "Rights".

and nothing you propose will do that

Get rid of a rifle and a different rifle will be used
Get rid of that rifle and a different rifle will be used
A mass shooter will just walk in to a school with a couple handguns and a shitload of magazines or a bullpup shotgun with an 18 shot capacity etc etc etc

The only thing that's going to stop anyone from shooting up a place is to not let them in in the first place

Great plan. A fortress door for everyone. All because you fucking idiots need a semi automatic rifle to play with. Get all beered Up & shoot bottles.

Ban these rifles, limit the capacity of all magazines. Take guns from people with violent records, Advance mental screening for concealed carry.

 

[RealDave]

Republicans see mass shootings as a form of population control, I guess.

That is a really stupid post......

Number killed in 2016.... 71, number killed in 2017....117

Number of people killed falling off ladders? 300.

Number of people killed in car accidents...38,000.

Conservatives and supporters of the 2nd Amendment know how to stop mass shootings and how to lower the gun crime rate....but because people like you are only interested in banning guns, not stopping gun crime, you won't listen to those solutions.

Ladders have a purpose.

Cars have a purpose

You toting a gun to make you feel like a tough guy is not a purpose.,

 

[Skull Pilot]

Because they are customizable, easy to shoot for all sizes of shooters especially women and the only reason you twits want the AR-15 so bad is that if you establish the precedent that the AR-15 rifle is dangerous because it is a semi automatic weapon....then you can come back and demand all other semi automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns, as well as revolvers be banned because as we tell you, and you will state later.....they all operate the same way.

You left out the mos important. It's the one designed to do the most damage in the fastest time. And you left out that it was designed as a combat rifle. Then you left out that there are much better alternatives. You left out that it has the body count record for mass shooters. You left out that it's easy to conceal and transport it.

I don't advocate outright banning of the AR but I do advocate better controls on it through common sense firearms regulation.

The first requirement of common sense firearms regulation is common sense. Since none of the proposed "common sense" gun regulations would prevent another mass murder, they are far from common sense regulation.

No regulation has kept a single gun out of the hands of a gang banger or a potential mass murderer. Adding more regulations will not solve the firearm murder rate. Mainly, since those determined to do the murders don't give a tinker's damn about your regulations. The only people affected are honest, law abiding citizens.

Next, is this over fascination with numbers. One dead, no big deal, ten dead, big deal. Yet, ten dead is nothing more than one dead, ten times over. People die individually, and are mourned individually.

All common sense gun regs do is minimize the body count and make it harder for stupid people to kill so easily. There is quite a bit involved in those common sense regs but you will find each and every one of them an affront to your "Rights".

and nothing you propose will do that

Get rid of a rifle and a different rifle will be used
Get rid of that rifle and a different rifle will be used
A mass shooter will just walk in to a school with a couple handguns and a shitload of magazines or a bullpup shotgun with an 18 shot capacity etc etc etc

The only thing that's going to stop anyone from shooting up a place is to not let them in in the first place

Great plan. A fortress door for everyone. All because you fucking idiots need a semi automatic rifle to play with. Get all beered Up & shoot bottles.

Ban these rifles, limit the capacity of all magazines. Take guns from people with violent records, Advance mental screening for concealed carry.

I have a steel door on my house surely you care enough about the little school kids to put steel doors on schools

And you don't seem to understand that I am not responsible for anyone who decides to go on a killing spree. It matters not if I own guns. The fact that I own guns has ZERO bearing on any mass shooting

 

[Skull Pilot]

Republicans see mass shootings as a form of population control, I guess.

That is a really stupid post......

Number killed in 2016.... 71, number killed in 2017....117

Number of people killed falling off ladders? 300.

Number of people killed in car accidents...38,000.

Conservatives and supporters of the 2nd Amendment know how to stop mass shootings and how to lower the gun crime rate....but because people like you are only interested in banning guns, not stopping gun crime, you won't listen to those solutions.

Ladders have a purpose.

Cars have a purpose

You toting a gun to make you feel like a tough guy is not a purpose.,

It's none of your fucking business

 

[RealDave]

We can't defend ourselves against our own government with these pea shooters.

We need machine guns right now.

.

So you get your machine guns and go for it. As you stand on your little hill and look out across the landscape at the Federal US Military, It reminds me of a Movie Quote, "I think we need a bigger boat".

so, give us our machine guns.

S you need one to be a tough guy? Get a bump stock & go for it.

 

[RealDave]

You left out the mos important. It's the one designed to do the most damage in the fastest time. And you left out that it was designed as a combat rifle. Then you left out that there are much better alternatives. You left out that it has the body count record for mass shooters. You left out that it's easy to conceal and transport it.

I don't advocate outright banning of the AR but I do advocate better controls on it through common sense firearms regulation.

The first requirement of common sense firearms regulation is common sense. Since none of the proposed "common sense" gun regulations would prevent another mass murder, they are far from common sense regulation.

No regulation has kept a single gun out of the hands of a gang banger or a potential mass murderer. Adding more regulations will not solve the firearm murder rate. Mainly, since those determined to do the murders don't give a tinker's damn about your regulations. The only people affected are honest, law abiding citizens.

Next, is this over fascination with numbers. One dead, no big deal, ten dead, big deal. Yet, ten dead is nothing more than one dead, ten times over. People die individually, and are mourned individually.

All common sense gun regs do is minimize the body count and make it harder for stupid people to kill so easily. There is quite a bit involved in those common sense regs but you will find each and every one of them an affront to your "Rights".

and nothing you propose will do that

Get rid of a rifle and a different rifle will be used
Get rid of that rifle and a different rifle will be used
A mass shooter will just walk in to a school with a couple handguns and a shitload of magazines or a bullpup shotgun with an 18 shot capacity etc etc etc

The only thing that's going to stop anyone from shooting up a place is to not let them in in the first place

Great plan. A fortress door for everyone. All because you fucking idiots need a semi automatic rifle to play with. Get all beered Up & shoot bottles.

Ban these rifles, limit the capacity of all magazines. Take guns from people with violent records, Advance mental screening for concealed carry.

I have a steel door on my house surely you care enough about the little school kids to put steel doors on schools

And you don't seem to understand that I am not responsible for anyone who decides to go on a killing spree. It matters not if I own guns. The fact that I own guns has ZERO bearing on any mass shooting

When was your last mental exam???

 

[Skull Pilot]

We can't defend ourselves against our own government with these pea shooters.

We need machine guns right now.

.

So you get your machine guns and go for it. As you stand on your little hill and look out across the landscape at the Federal US Military, It reminds me of a Movie Quote, "I think we need a bigger boat".

so, give us our machine guns.

S you need one to be a tough guy? Get a bump stock & go for it.

DOn't need a bump stock to bump fire a gun

 

[Skull Pilot]

The first requirement of common sense firearms regulation is common sense. Since none of the proposed "common sense" gun regulations would prevent another mass murder, they are far from common sense regulation.

No regulation has kept a single gun out of the hands of a gang banger or a potential mass murderer. Adding more regulations will not solve the firearm murder rate. Mainly, since those determined to do the murders don't give a tinker's damn about your regulations. The only people affected are honest, law abiding citizens.

Next, is this over fascination with numbers. One dead, no big deal, ten dead, big deal. Yet, ten dead is nothing more than one dead, ten times over. People die individually, and are mourned individually.

All common sense gun regs do is minimize the body count and make it harder for stupid people to kill so easily. There is quite a bit involved in those common sense regs but you will find each and every one of them an affront to your "Rights".

and nothing you propose will do that

Get rid of a rifle and a different rifle will be used
Get rid of that rifle and a different rifle will be used
A mass shooter will just walk in to a school with a couple handguns and a shitload of magazines or a bullpup shotgun with an 18 shot capacity etc etc etc

The only thing that's going to stop anyone from shooting up a place is to not let them in in the first place

Great plan. A fortress door for everyone. All because you fucking idiots need a semi automatic rifle to play with. Get all beered Up & shoot bottles.

Ban these rifles, limit the capacity of all magazines. Take guns from people with violent records, Advance mental screening for concealed carry.

I have a steel door on my house surely you care enough about the little school kids to put steel doors on schools

And you don't seem to understand that I am not responsible for anyone who decides to go on a killing spree. It matters not if I own guns. The fact that I own guns has ZERO bearing on any mass shooting

When was your last mental exam???

None of your fucking business

 

[2aguy]

Because they are customizable, easy to shoot for all sizes of shooters especially women and the only reason you twits want the AR-15 so bad is that if you establish the precedent that the AR-15 rifle is dangerous because it is a semi automatic weapon....then you can come back and demand all other semi automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns, as well as revolvers be banned because as we tell you, and you will state later.....they all operate the same way.

You left out the mos important. It's the one designed to do the most damage in the fastest time. And you left out that it was designed as a combat rifle. Then you left out that there are much better alternatives. You left out that it has the body count record for mass shooters. You left out that it's easy to conceal and transport it.

I don't advocate outright banning of the AR but I do advocate better controls on it through common sense firearms regulation.

The first requirement of common sense firearms regulation is common sense. Since none of the proposed "common sense" gun regulations would prevent another mass murder, they are far from common sense regulation.

No regulation has kept a single gun out of the hands of a gang banger or a potential mass murderer. Adding more regulations will not solve the firearm murder rate. Mainly, since those determined to do the murders don't give a tinker's damn about your regulations. The only people affected are honest, law abiding citizens.

Next, is this over fascination with numbers. One dead, no big deal, ten dead, big deal. Yet, ten dead is nothing more than one dead, ten times over. People die individually, and are mourned individually.

All common sense gun regs do is minimize the body count and make it harder for stupid people to kill so easily. There is quite a bit involved in those common sense regs but you will find each and every one of them an affront to your "Rights".

and nothing you propose will do that

Get rid of a rifle and a different rifle will be used
Get rid of that rifle and a different rifle will be used
A mass shooter will just walk in to a school with a couple handguns and a shitload of magazines or a bullpup shotgun with an 18 shot capacity etc etc etc

The only thing that's going to stop anyone from shooting up a place is to not let them in in the first place

Great plan. A fortress door for everyone. All because you fucking idiots need a semi automatic rifle to play with. Get all beered Up & shoot bottles.

Ban these rifles, limit the capacity of all magazines. Take guns from people with violent records, Advance mental screening for concealed carry.

And you have been shown through actual research that banning these rifles is stupid, and that magazine bans are stupid too, they do nothing at all.....yet you blindly hate guns and will do anything you can to ban them....

Assault weapon ban....

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf

The decline in the use of AWs has been due primarily to a reduction in the use of assault pistols (APs), which are used in crime more commonly than assault rifles (ARs). There has not been a clear decline in the use of ARs, though assessments are complicated by the rarity of crimes with these weapons and by substitution of post-ban rifles that are very similar to the banned AR models.
--------
Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban.

Magazine capacity...no bearing on the deaths in mass shootings...

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

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.

-----


-----
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

-----


SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

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.

 

[RealDave]

In a Builiding of a mass public shooting, the police with hand guns are not outgunned by a rifle....the rifle is a long range weapon that loses it's advantage in the confines of a building....in fact, it can become a disadvantage in close quarters....

So you're saying that an assault rifle is a lousy self defense weapon. I agree.

It's also a lousy hunting weapon.

So we "need" them why?

A semiauto .223 is NOT an assault rifle and is a very good choice for small game and pest control.

I shot a rabid skunk with my .223 semiauto this summer so maybe I saved your dog or your kids from getting bit by a dangerous animal

you're welcome

I can shoot. Those that can't need that semi-automatic aspect.

 

[2aguy]

Republicans see mass shootings as a form of population control, I guess.

That is a really stupid post......

Number killed in 2016.... 71, number killed in 2017....117

Number of people killed falling off ladders? 300.

Number of people killed in car accidents...38,000.

Conservatives and supporters of the 2nd Amendment know how to stop mass shootings and how to lower the gun crime rate....but because people like you are only interested in banning guns, not stopping gun crime, you won't listen to those solutions.

Ladders have a purpose.

Cars have a purpose

You toting a gun to make you feel like a tough guy is not a purpose.,

Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop rapes, robberies and murders...that means those guns save lives......

If it saves one life...right?

 

[RealDave]

You left out the mos important. It's the one designed to do the most damage in the fastest time. And you left out that it was designed as a combat rifle. Then you left out that there are much better alternatives. You left out that it has the body count record for mass shooters. You left out that it's easy to conceal and transport it.

I don't advocate outright banning of the AR but I do advocate better controls on it through common sense firearms regulation.

The first requirement of common sense firearms regulation is common sense. Since none of the proposed "common sense" gun regulations would prevent another mass murder, they are far from common sense regulation.

No regulation has kept a single gun out of the hands of a gang banger or a potential mass murderer. Adding more regulations will not solve the firearm murder rate. Mainly, since those determined to do the murders don't give a tinker's damn about your regulations. The only people affected are honest, law abiding citizens.

Next, is this over fascination with numbers. One dead, no big deal, ten dead, big deal. Yet, ten dead is nothing more than one dead, ten times over. People die individually, and are mourned individually.

All common sense gun regs do is minimize the body count and make it harder for stupid people to kill so easily. There is quite a bit involved in those common sense regs but you will find each and every one of them an affront to your "Rights".

and nothing you propose will do that

Get rid of a rifle and a different rifle will be used
Get rid of that rifle and a different rifle will be used
A mass shooter will just walk in to a school with a couple handguns and a shitload of magazines or a bullpup shotgun with an 18 shot capacity etc etc etc

The only thing that's going to stop anyone from shooting up a place is to not let them in in the first place

Great plan. A fortress door for everyone. All because you fucking idiots need a semi automatic rifle to play with. Get all beered Up & shoot bottles.

Ban these rifles, limit the capacity of all magazines. Take guns from people with violent records, Advance mental screening for concealed carry.

And you have been shown through actual research that banning these rifles is stupid, and that magazine bans are stupid too, they do nothing at all.....yet you blindly hate guns and will do anything you can to ban them....

Assault weapon ban....

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf

The decline in the use of AWs has been due primarily to a reduction in the use of assault pistols (APs), which are used in crime more commonly than assault rifles (ARs). There has not been a clear decline in the use of ARs, though assessments are complicated by the rarity of crimes with these weapons and by substitution of post-ban rifles that are very similar to the banned AR models.
--------
Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban.

Magazine capacity...no bearing on the deaths in mass shootings...

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

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.

-----


-----
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

-----


SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

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.

IF LARGER MAGAZINES GIVE NO ADVANTAGE WHY THE FUCK DO YOU NEED THEM.

 

[RealDave]

Oh not this stupid fucking excuse again.

We had an assault weapon ban. We all know what guns are being discussed.

Lol
ARs are just sporting rifles... Get your facts straight

What sport is that?

Competitive shooting, both single rifle, and 3 gun competition.....and, of course, self defense....

You need a semi automatic for this?

Ray said a handgun was just as good as a semiautomatic rifle for self defence.

I said a semi-automatic handgun is just as good because both guns fire the same amount of rounds in the same amount of time.

There you go. You don't need that AR-15.

 

[RealDave]

In a Builiding of a mass public shooting, the police with hand guns are not outgunned by a rifle....the rifle is a long range weapon that loses it's advantage in the confines of a building....in fact, it can become a disadvantage in close quarters....

So you're saying that an assault rifle is a lousy self defense weapon. I agree.

It's also a lousy hunting weapon.

So we "need" them why?

First of all it depends on the set up, Ars can be set up to be a great personal defense firearms depending on the situation.
There is no better varmint rifle than an ar/m-4 platform. Obviously you use emotion to make up your opinion that makes you a fucking retard....

You can't use a .222 for varmit? Why do you need a semi-automatic?

.222?
Prairie dogs are a hoot to shoot… There are far too many of them, ARs and the like work best for eradicating the diseased parasites.

Wow, shooting harmless little animals get you off.

 

[2aguy]

The first requirement of common sense firearms regulation is common sense. Since none of the proposed "common sense" gun regulations would prevent another mass murder, they are far from common sense regulation.

No regulation has kept a single gun out of the hands of a gang banger or a potential mass murderer. Adding more regulations will not solve the firearm murder rate. Mainly, since those determined to do the murders don't give a tinker's damn about your regulations. The only people affected are honest, law abiding citizens.

Next, is this over fascination with numbers. One dead, no big deal, ten dead, big deal. Yet, ten dead is nothing more than one dead, ten times over. People die individually, and are mourned individually.

All common sense gun regs do is minimize the body count and make it harder for stupid people to kill so easily. There is quite a bit involved in those common sense regs but you will find each and every one of them an affront to your "Rights".

and nothing you propose will do that

Get rid of a rifle and a different rifle will be used
Get rid of that rifle and a different rifle will be used
A mass shooter will just walk in to a school with a couple handguns and a shitload of magazines or a bullpup shotgun with an 18 shot capacity etc etc etc

The only thing that's going to stop anyone from shooting up a place is to not let them in in the first place

Great plan. A fortress door for everyone. All because you fucking idiots need a semi automatic rifle to play with. Get all beered Up & shoot bottles.

Ban these rifles, limit the capacity of all magazines. Take guns from people with violent records, Advance mental screening for concealed carry.

And you have been shown through actual research that banning these rifles is stupid, and that magazine bans are stupid too, they do nothing at all.....yet you blindly hate guns and will do anything you can to ban them....

Assault weapon ban....

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf

The decline in the use of AWs has been due primarily to a reduction in the use of assault pistols (APs), which are used in crime more commonly than assault rifles (ARs). There has not been a clear decline in the use of ARs, though assessments are complicated by the rarity of crimes with these weapons and by substitution of post-ban rifles that are very similar to the banned AR models.
--------
Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban.

Magazine capacity...no bearing on the deaths in mass shootings...

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

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.

-----


-----
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

-----


SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

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.

IF LARGER MAGAZINES GIVE NO ADVANTAGE WHY THE FUCK DO YOU NEED THEM.

They give a defender a better chance against an attack....they don't change the outcome of a mass public shooting.

You don't limit the number of bullets a good person needs to defend themselves simply because you hate guns....you don't tell the Fire Department how much water they are allowed to use to put out a house fire......

 

[xotoxi]

They do have a solution:

Thoughts and prayers

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Lol
ARs are just sporting rifles... Get your facts straight

What sport is that?

Competitive shooting, both single rifle, and 3 gun competition.....and, of course, self defense....

You need a semi automatic for this?

Ray said a handgun was just as good as a semiautomatic rifle for self defence.

I said a semi-automatic handgun is just as good because both guns fire the same amount of rounds in the same amount of time.

There you go. You don't need that AR-15.

You don't need an SUV.
You don't need a 70" big screen television.
You don't need a swimming pool.
You don't need that Hawaiian vacation.

It's not about need, it's about desire, it's about choice, it's about what you feel comfortable with.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The first requirement of common sense firearms regulation is common sense. Since none of the proposed "common sense" gun regulations would prevent another mass murder, they are far from common sense regulation.

No regulation has kept a single gun out of the hands of a gang banger or a potential mass murderer. Adding more regulations will not solve the firearm murder rate. Mainly, since those determined to do the murders don't give a tinker's damn about your regulations. The only people affected are honest, law abiding citizens.

Next, is this over fascination with numbers. One dead, no big deal, ten dead, big deal. Yet, ten dead is nothing more than one dead, ten times over. People die individually, and are mourned individually.

All common sense gun regs do is minimize the body count and make it harder for stupid people to kill so easily. There is quite a bit involved in those common sense regs but you will find each and every one of them an affront to your "Rights".

and nothing you propose will do that

Get rid of a rifle and a different rifle will be used
Get rid of that rifle and a different rifle will be used
A mass shooter will just walk in to a school with a couple handguns and a shitload of magazines or a bullpup shotgun with an 18 shot capacity etc etc etc

The only thing that's going to stop anyone from shooting up a place is to not let them in in the first place

Great plan. A fortress door for everyone. All because you fucking idiots need a semi automatic rifle to play with. Get all beered Up & shoot bottles.

Ban these rifles, limit the capacity of all magazines. Take guns from people with violent records, Advance mental screening for concealed carry.

And you have been shown through actual research that banning these rifles is stupid, and that magazine bans are stupid too, they do nothing at all.....yet you blindly hate guns and will do anything you can to ban them....

Assault weapon ban....

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf

The decline in the use of AWs has been due primarily to a reduction in the use of assault pistols (APs), which are used in crime more commonly than assault rifles (ARs). There has not been a clear decline in the use of ARs, though assessments are complicated by the rarity of crimes with these weapons and by substitution of post-ban rifles that are very similar to the banned AR models.
--------
Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban.

Magazine capacity...no bearing on the deaths in mass shootings...

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

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.

-----


-----
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

-----


SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

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.

IF LARGER MAGAZINES GIVE NO ADVANTAGE WHY THE FUCK DO YOU NEED THEM.

They give you no advantage if you have more loaded magazines. If you are in a situation of defending yourself against armed multiple attackers, you likely don't have additional magazines on you.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

In a Builiding of a mass public shooting, the police with hand guns are not outgunned by a rifle....the rifle is a long range weapon that loses it's advantage in the confines of a building....in fact, it can become a disadvantage in close quarters....

So you're saying that an assault rifle is a lousy self defense weapon. I agree.

It's also a lousy hunting weapon.

So we "need" them why?

A semiauto .223 is NOT an assault rifle and is a very good choice for small game and pest control.

I shot a rabid skunk with my .223 semiauto this summer so maybe I saved your dog or your kids from getting bit by a dangerous animal

you're welcome

I can shoot. Those that can't need that semi-automatic aspect.

That statement alone shows you never shot a gun in your life.