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

[Rustic]

ARs are just sporting rifles.... no two ways about it

Then how could they be a credible defense against a government that has an actual military?

First of all the military is overwhelmingly pro second amendment, they would never go against their own… And against the constitution
Federal government would have to use the CIA/FBI/NSA/homeland security/ATF to confiscate firearms from the public… They could not use the military, the use the military domestically against citizens?Posse Comitatus Act - Wikipedia
The military would never go for that to begin with, they would turn their weapons on an oppressive federal government...

How do you think a bunch of rag heads in Afghanistan have foiled every empire over the course of history with much lesser?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

We need machine guns? Very well. I agree.

Welcome to the insanity that is Gun Huggers

Solution to mass shootings and gun violence?

Machine Guns...

Oh....

You said defense against government. Quit switch topics.

The solution to mass shootings is for you to quit being a pants-shitting hoplophobe.

.

 

[Rustic]

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

Lol
Little one, When are you going to realize there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats in Washington DC... All career politicians are the same no matter what side they pick

 

[Lesh]

am glad mass shooting idiots have not figured this out yet. With buckshot, one magizine could kill 50-100 people in a tight crowed.

We've had shotgun attacks in this country and they invariably lead to lower body counts.

We've SEEN what assault weapons can do to a crowd

 

[Rustic]

It's too bad these gun debates are always two dimesional /black/white mentality

That's the biggest part of the problem

jmho

~S~

You will notice that I don't advocate the banning but the regulation. I think we both know there is a world of difference in those two terms. But the gun crazies operate that if you are not completely with them, you are completely against them. And they are looking for someone else to blame other than themselves. What they don't understand is, they may be right on certain parts but they come off as crackpot overall. And then things may go overboard on the Regulations. Usually, the new gun regs pretty well it right in most states. And they are all slowly coming towards the same Regulations. Then when they notice that there are enough of people like me and yes, the other side fringe, posting then here comes the temper tantrum and the threat of a revolution to "Protect their Rights".

Lol
Progressives have no common sense, so there’s absolutely no reason for them to be in charge of anything when it comes to our constitution

 

[Lesh]

You said defense against government. Quit switch topics.

I'm responding to the ever changing Gun Hugger arguments dumbass. Keep up

 

[Rustic]

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".

Lol
The military is overwhelmingly Pro second amendment they would tell you anti-gun grabbing nutters to fuck off...

 

[Rustic]

am glad mass shooting idiots have not figured this out yet. With buckshot, one magizine could kill 50-100 people in a tight crowed.

We've had shotgun attacks in this country and they invariably lead to lower body counts.

We've SEEN what assault weapons can do to a crowd

ARs are just sporting rifles... dip shit

 

[BookShaka]

Okay, so any level gun control is bad which is of course retarded on its own, but the right can’t even think of any alternatives to curbing gun violence. Saying “no” to everything accomplishes absolutely nothing. It’s astounding we are still at square one.

Forgive me if you’d already been asked this but what is your solution? Neither side has done anything about the mass shooting problem in this country that has made any difference, and if you’re going to act all high and mighty you must have a good solution brewing in that head of yours, yes?

 

[2aguy]

That statement is just foolish.

Please give us your definition of an assault weapon. Not your fantasies, what is the definition of an assault weapon. What is the difference between that and, say, an AR-15?

You will agree that a M-16 is an assault rifle, right? And that definition has nothing to do with the A in the AR. It's used to assault in a war condition and it's pretty damned good at it. It's normally used in it's single shot setting because it just wastes ammo otherwise. So now you have a single shot M-16. Can you tell me the difference between an AR-15 and a M-16/M-4? And don't give me that crap about the AR must being a sporting rifle. You may be right but the sport animal it was designed to assault is human. All other uses are secondary.

So you agree that the AR-15 is far from being any sort of Assault Weapon. THANK YOU!

Follow along kiddies.

We're told that it's important to have an AR-15 because it is a good gun for shooting squirrels...

We're also told that it's not a good self defense weapon (there are many much better)...

And that the main reason for having one is a "defense against the government"...but that it's not a military grade weapon.

Of course defending oneself against an actual military with a weapon that is admittedly not military grade sounds silly but then the entire gun hugger argument is pretty fucking silly so....

Oh and no...the gun huggers have no solution to mass shootings or gun violence because ...they just don't see it as a problem

That's your imagination. Of course it's a problem. The question is if it can be solved. Our stance is that disarming the public and even the removal of AR's will not solve anything. It would only make people like yourself feel better.

But even if you could accomplish either of those things, and the next mass shooting takes place, you will want to advance to the next step, and the next, and the next.

That is where we really stand.

The only thing we can do is actually a social problem. Yah, I know, I type social and you transpose "Socialist" over it. But social change has nothing to do with a bunch of commies. Here are some steps that have helped here, at the permission of the Voters

1. Put in detectors right on the front door of the School, or any public gathering place. This stops even handguns from being brought in. Yah, I know, there are still stupid kids that try and bring in their Daddys handgun out of kicks but the get bagged very quickly and the gun gets confiscated by the Police to never be returned. The Onus is on the Parents in this case. And put well trained Armed Security on that Gate. It prevents or slows down firearms being brought into the public areas where you have no choice but to have as a Gun Free Zone.

2. Educate the general public. In Texas, you may see people walking around on a hot sunny dry day wearing Rain Coats or Dusters. Here, if you see that, the Cops are called if you are within 1000 feet of a School. The Cops respond. 3 times the cops have been called. 2 of the times, it was a stupid fashion statement that I doubt if that student will ever do again. The 3rd time, under that Rain Coat was an AR and 4 30 round mags. The School didn't call it in. A concerned Citizen called it in and the Cops took all 3 as serious as a heart attack.

You don't need every Teacher Armed. Right after the States Board of Education approved that the Teachers can be armed, the Teachers Association along with the PTAs turned it down. There have been accidental discharged by teachers in schools that have done this. And if you same one life then you should do it. There are other methods.

There are other methods that can be used at the same time. If you want to see them, google Colorado Firearms Regulations. When you total it all together, you end up with a much safter place.

Put in detectors right on the front door of the School, or any public gathering place.
Really? They simply shoot the guy at the detector and walk into the school.


We already have states that allow staff to be armed and nothing you claim is happening....you talk out of your ass and then act as if you have posted something intelligent....

 

[2aguy]

We get to keep our AR 15. Go ahead and cry you pussies.

You wil never ever EVER get another "assault weapons" ban. That was your best shot and it turned oht to be a huge loser.

Scared? GOOD. Fuck you.



We really need to break up this shitty, dead union. I do not want to share a nation with all these gun-grabbing fucktards. I fucking hate them. They are not human beings. They have no value and must be eliminated forever.

.

You don't get to keep your ARs in certain Cities. And if it' keeps being used as the primary Mass Shooting Tool, look for at least a few states to follow. If you want to keep your AR and continue to be a law abiding citizen I suggest you work on the social issues of the AR Cult which you are a member of.

The AR-15 is not the primary tool of mass shooters...you keep stating that and it isn't even close to being true...

 

[Rustic]

It's too bad these gun debates are always two dimesional /black/white mentality

That's the biggest part of the problem

jmho

~S~

You will notice that I don't advocate the banning but the regulation. I think we both know there is a world of difference in those two terms. But the gun crazies operate that if you are not completely with them, you are completely against them. And they are looking for someone else to blame other than themselves. What they don't understand is, they may be right on certain parts but they come off as crackpot overall. And then things may go overboard on the Regulations. Usually, the new gun regs pretty well it right in most states. And they are all slowly coming towards the same Regulations. Then when they notice that there are enough of people like me and yes, the other side fringe, posting then here comes the temper tantrum and the threat of a revolution to "Protect their Rights".

No.... 2nd Amendment supporters know that the regulations you want do nothing to stop mass shooters, or criminals and all they do is set up the next step in the march to ban and confiscate guns.

You are a lost cause. The ONLY thing the 2nd amendment does is limit the Feds. And our common sense laws here have proven you wrong. We have the highest number of mass shootings here than any other state. But it stopped cold when we went to common sense regulations and social changes. Not Socialist changes as your reading what you want to read, but real social changes. It's much harder now for the shooter to get his weapons into place to use them. And a few other tidbits. It works. But your bunch and the NRA fought tooth and nail and spent millions to try and block all this while spewing your "Fixes" or not offering any viable "Fixes" in the process. You failed, we won and we are safer now than we were 20 years ago.

Wrong, The 2nd Amendment doesn't grant a Right, it doesn't only limit the power of the Federal government ......the Right belongs to us in the state as well....Mcdonald v City of Chicago explained that to people like you...

McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms," as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states.

There you go again. McDonald, like Heller was taken up because the State tried to ban handguns in the home. Handguns, conventional hunting rifles and shotguns (except for shortened barrels) are a right to have in hour home. All other weapons are privileges, not rights. The ones that are deemed privileges are done that way for the sake of Public Safety. But it does NOT stop the state from requiring you to have to register the firearm or for you to have to possess a license to own it. The State just has to make it where you CAN own the lesser firearms. And they can come and take you guns if you don't follow their regulations. As long as it's done with Due Process that is. You are just throwing another temper tantrum.

Lol
You anti gun nutters just stay in your gun grabbing states... I guess

 

[2aguy]

Okay, so any level gun control is bad which is of course retarded on its own, but the right can’t even think of any alternatives to curbing gun violence. Saying “no” to everything accomplishes absolutely nothing. It’s astounding we are still at square one.

Oh, they do. Their solution is to arm everyone, because apparently this will somehow work. Yeah, more guns will mean more people die, which will then destroy humans in the US and when they're all dead, there won't be any gun crime.

Funny I never said anything about arming everyone
I do know disarming everyone (who would obey the law) won't lower the murder rate

'Because I disagree with most of what you have to say (your fruitcake logic) does that mean that I want to disarm everyone? No, just the crazy people and it appears you may fit that definition.

It's the classic camel's nose under the tent

So you ban the Ar 15 then the next school shooter uses a Mini 14 then you want to ban that gun so the Mini 14 gets banned and the next school shooter uses a different semiauto then you want to ban that because it was used in a school shooting etc etc etc

Wrong.

But your post does fail as a classic slippery slope fallacy.

In fact, in jurisdictions where AR platform rifles and carbines have been restricted, no efforts have been made to restrict compliant platforms such as the Mini 14 or SU 16.

Wrong....There is no difference between the AR-15 and the Mini 14 or SU 16, and Highland park and Deerfield have banned them and now Washington state is getting into the act...

And the AR-15 is consitutionally protected, as you know, from the Heller decision and Scalia's clarification for people like you in Friedman v Highland park where he states, by name, that the AR-15 is a Constitutionally protected rifle, which means any city or state that bans them is violating the Constitution.....

 

[2aguy]

Follow along kiddies.

We're told that it's important to have an AR-15 because it is a good gun for shooting squirrels...

We're also told that it's not a good self defense weapon (there are many much better)...

And that the main reason for having one is a "defense against the government"...but that it's not a military grade weapon.

Of course defending oneself against an actual military with a weapon that is admittedly not military grade sounds silly but then the entire gun hugger argument is pretty fucking silly so....

Oh and no...the gun huggers have no solution to mass shootings or gun violence because ...they just don't see it as a problem

That's your imagination. Of course it's a problem. The question is if it can be solved. Our stance is that disarming the public and even the removal of AR's will not solve anything. It would only make people like yourself feel better.

But even if you could accomplish either of those things, and the next mass shooting takes place, you will want to advance to the next step, and the next, and the next.

That is where we really stand.

The only thing we can do is actually a social problem. Yah, I know, I type social and you transpose "Socialist" over it. But social change has nothing to do with a bunch of commies. Here are some steps that have helped here, at the permission of the Voters

1. Put in detectors right on the front door of the School, or any public gathering place. This stops even handguns from being brought in. Yah, I know, there are still stupid kids that try and bring in their Daddys handgun out of kicks but the get bagged very quickly and the gun gets confiscated by the Police to never be returned. The Onus is on the Parents in this case. And put well trained Armed Security on that Gate. It prevents or slows down firearms being brought into the public areas where you have no choice but to have as a Gun Free Zone.

2. Educate the general public. In Texas, you may see people walking around on a hot sunny dry day wearing Rain Coats or Dusters. Here, if you see that, the Cops are called if you are within 1000 feet of a School. The Cops respond. 3 times the cops have been called. 2 of the times, it was a stupid fashion statement that I doubt if that student will ever do again. The 3rd time, under that Rain Coat was an AR and 4 30 round mags. The School didn't call it in. A concerned Citizen called it in and the Cops took all 3 as serious as a heart attack.

You don't need every Teacher Armed. Right after the States Board of Education approved that the Teachers can be armed, the Teachers Association along with the PTAs turned it down. There have been accidental discharged by teachers in schools that have done this. And if you same one life then you should do it. There are other methods.

There are other methods that can be used at the same time. If you want to see them, google Colorado Firearms Regulations. When you total it all together, you end up with a much safter place.

No school that I'm aware of has ever created policy of mandatory armed teachers. It's a leftist lie if that's what's out there. Armed faculty is an option that only those interested may participate. Even then, most of the time the requirements are a lot of training beyond just having a CCW permit.

No, not mandatory. But enough have done Voluntary to show that it's not a good idea. There are better methods and most schools around here have adopted those methods. If you want to mass shoot and there are not student so shoot and all the doors into a large area are made of heavy metal and electronically locked remotely then you really can't have much of a mass shooting. While you are running around trying to find a way in, SWAT is coming in the front door. Or it might be a bunch of pissed off cops with guns that are pissed off that you interrupted their Donut Break.

The beauty of CCW licenses is that a possible attacker does not know who is armed and who is not.

For instance, schools have been attacked in the past even though they had armed security. However armed security is obvious. They have uniforms, they of course are open carry, they usually position themselves in one place, and their daily routines can be tracked by a possible attacker.

When a kook makes a plan to attack other people, they like to know where they stand. As I just mentioned, a student could monitor the activities of an armed guard. They can't do that with an armed teacher because they don't know who is armed or not. Creating this uncertainty is what can throw them off or even make them abort their mission.

Yes...and since we know that mass shooters plan their attacks 6 months to 2 years in advance, they select schools that do not have armed security...or they target those guards first........

 

[Rustic]

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.

 

[Lesh]

ARs are just sporting rifles... dip shit

Then how are they a defense against an over reaching government with an actual military?

 

[Rustic]

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.,

Lol
No one has a right to ladders and cars… Firearm ownership is an absolute right... less Someone fucks it up for themselves

 

[Rustic]

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.

Lol
Who are you to say what someone needs and doesn’t need when it comes Firearm ownership… Fuck off you little weasel

 

[BookShaka]

Okay, so any level gun control is bad which is of course retarded on its own, but the right can’t even think of any alternatives to curbing gun violence. Saying “no” to everything accomplishes absolutely nothing. It’s astounding we are still at square one.

If we have background checks and keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill a majority of Trumplicans would not qualify to own a gun.

Proof for this claim please.

 

[2aguy]

That's your imagination. Of course it's a problem. The question is if it can be solved. Our stance is that disarming the public and even the removal of AR's will not solve anything. It would only make people like yourself feel better.

But even if you could accomplish either of those things, and the next mass shooting takes place, you will want to advance to the next step, and the next, and the next.

That is where we really stand.

The only thing we can do is actually a social problem. Yah, I know, I type social and you transpose "Socialist" over it. But social change has nothing to do with a bunch of commies. Here are some steps that have helped here, at the permission of the Voters

1. Put in detectors right on the front door of the School, or any public gathering place. This stops even handguns from being brought in. Yah, I know, there are still stupid kids that try and bring in their Daddys handgun out of kicks but the get bagged very quickly and the gun gets confiscated by the Police to never be returned. The Onus is on the Parents in this case. And put well trained Armed Security on that Gate. It prevents or slows down firearms being brought into the public areas where you have no choice but to have as a Gun Free Zone.

2. Educate the general public. In Texas, you may see people walking around on a hot sunny dry day wearing Rain Coats or Dusters. Here, if you see that, the Cops are called if you are within 1000 feet of a School. The Cops respond. 3 times the cops have been called. 2 of the times, it was a stupid fashion statement that I doubt if that student will ever do again. The 3rd time, under that Rain Coat was an AR and 4 30 round mags. The School didn't call it in. A concerned Citizen called it in and the Cops took all 3 as serious as a heart attack.

You don't need every Teacher Armed. Right after the States Board of Education approved that the Teachers can be armed, the Teachers Association along with the PTAs turned it down. There have been accidental discharged by teachers in schools that have done this. And if you same one life then you should do it. There are other methods.

There are other methods that can be used at the same time. If you want to see them, google Colorado Firearms Regulations. When you total it all together, you end up with a much safter place.

No school that I'm aware of has ever created policy of mandatory armed teachers. It's a leftist lie if that's what's out there. Armed faculty is an option that only those interested may participate. Even then, most of the time the requirements are a lot of training beyond just having a CCW permit.

No, not mandatory. But enough have done Voluntary to show that it's not a good idea. There are better methods and most schools around here have adopted those methods. If you want to mass shoot and there are not student so shoot and all the doors into a large area are made of heavy metal and electronically locked remotely then you really can't have much of a mass shooting. While you are running around trying to find a way in, SWAT is coming in the front door. Or it might be a bunch of pissed off cops with guns that are pissed off that you interrupted their Donut Break.

The beauty of CCW licenses is that a possible attacker does not know who is armed and who is not.

For instance, schools have been attacked in the past even though they had armed security. However armed security is obvious. They have uniforms, they of course are open carry, they usually position themselves in one place, and their daily routines can be tracked by a possible attacker.

When a kook makes a plan to attack other people, they like to know where they stand. As I just mentioned, a student could monitor the activities of an armed guard. They can't do that with an armed teacher because they don't know who is armed or not. Creating this uncertainty is what can throw them off or even make them abort their mission.

Or you can have only one way in where you have a detector and at least one highly trained and armed Security Guard where he can instigate a school lockdown with the touch of a button. Then if you get past that, any Teacher can instigate that lockdown with a touch of a button that is only available to Teachers and Faculty. You have to have a Mass to do a Mass Shooting. While you are running around trying to find a way in, the cops are notified and are coming enmass. The potential shooter just disturbed the cops Donut Break and they are going to be pissed off to hell and back. The Kook can plan till the cows come home but chances are, he will give up, go home or do something really stupid and still try to do the Mass Shooting. Talk about frustrating.

The Teachers aren't paid enough as it is. Yet you want them to go get trained to the point they can enter a battle field and function? And yes, one person with an AR and 4 30 round mags is a battlefield all by themselves to a SillyVillian. Unless you get continuous stress training, chances are,you are either going to start blasting away which becomes a real problem in a target rich situation but most likely you are going to freeze too long (hesitation is the normal human reaction) and that gun you have becomes worthless fast. Isn't it better to just remove the Mass from the Mass Shooting if you have the choice? The Teachers are much better at removing the masses than getting into a firefight.

You don't know what you are talking about.....mass shooters are not looking for a shoot out, they are looking to murder unarmed innocent people to get a high body count. As actual statements from them show, and actual shootings show, they run away, surrender or commit suicide as soon as they are confronted by anyone with a gun...... which is why you need to get someone challenging them, with a gun so that they move to that final step faster...... which is why getting rid of gun free zones is so important....mass shooters target gun free zones so if they know that parents can carry their legal guns with them when they drop off their kids or pick them up, or when they enter the school to drop off homework, or lunches, they will not target those schools....

And mass shooters are not looking for a gun fight..so the AR-15 does nothing for them when they are confronted by an armed civilian or police officer since they surrender, commit suicide or run away..... staff and civilian gun owners do not need to be Navy SEALs or Delta Force and they don't need to be experts in Close Quarters Battle......

They simply have to confront the shooter with intent to fight, and the shooter will commit suicide, run away or surrender.....