Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Progressives are not moderate… In fact it’s impossible for them to be soWhat we have here is too fringe groups yelling at each other while they are so LOUD that the rest of us have trouble discussing anything. You people aren't necessarily right, you are just LOUD.
Well......loud is how you are heard. The left is loud via MSM. We don't have that, so we need to yell louder. All we really have is AM radio and Fox news. The MSM, Hollywood, education, the internet is all dominated by the left.
But because we yell louder doesn't mean we are wrong either.
In an 8 hour period in there, I saw just a couple or three posts by a few people. But there were 64 posts by the same 4 people trying to yell down everyone else though insulting posts. Your bunch tries to bury everyone elses inputs. It's hard to weed through all the Insulting Posts to get to the meat of the subject. Once your posts goes into the loud venue, people just stop reading it and your real message is lost whether its right or not.
So what you are saying is the left does not "yell?"
What you're really upset about is not the number of posts, but that you are outnumbered. The majority on this subject are pro-gun. Therefore for every one post a leftist makes, it's battled with four opposition posts regardless of who posts them. Insults? That comes from both sides if you've been here long enough to realize it. I object to insulting posts unless one is reacting to a personal attack. I do that myself, but I never draw first blood.
I like civil discussions when it comes to politics. Insults are teen chat room exchanges. I avoid participating with flamers if possible. Speaking for myself only of course, I conduct myself here as if we were discussing issues at a bar or club in person. I don't believe in hiding behind a keyboard and tossing insults at people that may be 500 miles or more from where I live.
I am so difficult to handle there ain't enough of you to go around. So you just get LOUD. I am not loud but I do have a message without the petty insults to try and make myself look smarter, better looking, etc.. I have noticed that you are easier to read than most. I just don't particularly agree with everything you have to say. But, hey, that's what makes life interesting.
Yes, the Left Yells but I don't. But I find, in here, the major source of "Yelling" is from the fringe group of guncrazies. Rather than discuss and actually coming up with a solution (and yes, any solution I see I will pass on to other voters) they start in insulting and degrading the other person. I can't speak for MSN since I don't listen to that. I can't speak for Talk Radio since I don't listen to that. And I can't speak for
Pauxsnews since I don't watch nor listen to that. I speak for myself and the community for which I live in who have made changes to confront all the evils that are being shouted out to cover up an chance of coming to a solution. Newsflash: There is always a solution for most problems if we stop yelling and insulting each other long enough.
Right now, the Right needs to clean it's act in here and out of here. Do it before you lose more than you can afford to lose. And put a cork on the NRA meddling in local elections. One of the reasons so many Dems were elected into the house is that the NRA put money against the other side and the voters said enough. And the people voted in are Moderates. That should scare the hell out of everyone that is in the fringe on both sides.
LolThe .223 is a 22 caliber round you idiot
Wow...you're going off on guns and don't know that there is a significant difference between a .223 round and a .22 long/long rifle/short?
Yes they have (almost) the same diameter...but you DO understand that the casings (which hold the propellent) are considerably different? No? Then you need to shut the fuck up junior.
And "Lesh" ain't a she. Add that to the list of shit you get wrong
Na, not reallyhey didn't you just say the 5.56 was a round designed to wound not kill?
make up your mind
and you know as well as I do that an AR fires no faster than any other semiautomatic rifle
Let's take a look at the Vegas shooting. Over 500 people were wounded versus 57 confirmed dead. It does a lot of both wound and kill and it does it very fast and efficient. It's design, for the day, was dead on for combat.
it is no faster than any other semiautomatic rifle and here you are saying you don't want to ban all semiautomatics while calling to get rid of just one type because it's "too deadly"
I don't want to ban any of them. But I do want some checks and balances. When one weapon is as efficient in killing and wounding as the AR then it's worth seriously looking at.
The fact is, if you are going to go balls out for 10 minutes, the AR IS much faster than the sporting semi autos. If you are talking about one 30 round mag then no it's not. But bring lots of mags and the AR is now being used for what it was originally designed for and it's better at it than all the others.
ARs are just sporting rifles.... no two ways about it
All weapons are sport until someone takes aim at a human. It still goes back to the humans choice of taking that aim, and never is it the weapons choice. Trying to convince a lib of that is hilarious.
By your logic, laws don’t work because people still break them. Too stupid.It failed this time. You seem pretty happy about it. Many more would die if they adopted laws like Tennessee or Nevada or many other red states.Ah the “murder still happens so murder laws don’t work” defenseYou dumbass libtards, California already has massive gun control and it failed you stupid morons. Its like liberal posters want to be mocked.
Stop crying and whining like a 2 year old, you already have the gun control you want in California and it failed, suck it.
It failed because you people are dumb as a post. You can't force already law abiding citizens to be even more law abiding and criminals and crazy people flip you the bird no matter how many laws you pass. I'll take pity on the left and give them some advice, stop being idiots.
LolPlease don't play stupid. Fire up the old google and look it up yourself.
There aren't any jurisdictions where AR-15 are prohibited. You wrote a check with your mouth your behind refuses to cash. Not surprising.
Here, chew on this.
U.S. judge upholds Massachusetts assault weapons ban | Reuters
(Reuters) - A federal judge on Friday upheld a Massachusetts law banning assault weapons including the AR-15, saying the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment guarantee of Americans’ right to bear firearms does not cover them.
U.S. District Judge William Young in Boston ruled that assault weapons and large capacity magazines covered by the 1998 law were most useful in military service and fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment’s personal right to bear arms.
“In the absence of federal legislation, Massachusetts is free to ban these weapons and large capacity magazines,” Young wrote.
He also rejected a challenge to an enforcement notice Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey issued in 2016 to gun manufacturers and dealers clarifying what under the law is a “copy” of an assault weapon like the Colt AR-15.
Healey announced that notice after a gunman killed 49 people at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida.
Healey welcomed Young’s ruling. “Strong gun laws save lives, and we will not be intimidated by the gun lobby in our efforts to end the sale of assault weapons and protect our communities and schools,” she said in a statement.
The decision came amid renewed attention to gun violence and firearms ownership after a gunman killed 17 students and staff at a Florida high school in February, prompting a surge of gun control activism by teenage students.
Young acknowledged that the plaintiffs had cited the semi-automatic AR-15 rifle’s popularity in arguing the law must be unconstitutional because it would ban a class of firearms Americans had overwhelming chosen for legal purposes.
“Yet the AR-15’s present-day popularity is not constitutionally material,” Young wrote. “This is because the words of our Constitution are not mutable. They mean the same today as they did 227 years ago when the Second Amendment was adopted.”
The Gun Owners’ Action League of Massachusetts, which was among the plaintiffs who sued in 2017, said in a statement that it was concerned by the ruling, which sets a “dangerous precedent.” It said it would consider its next steps.
The U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 held for the first time that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual’s right to bear arms, but the ruling applied only to firearms kept in the home for self-defense.
The justices have avoided taking another major gun case for eight years. Most recently, in November, the court refused to hear a case challenging Maryland’s 2013 state ban on assault weapons.
That means that there ARE areas where the AR-15 is banned and it's been upheld in Federal Court. Heller V only dealt with DC and Handguns in the home. The places that spelled out the bans with general definitions were turned down. But these places specifically read "AR-15 and the clones". These have stood in the Federal Courts. Now, don't you feel foolish.
The point that flew right over your blunt little head is that a person hell bent on killing people doesn't need a rifle and if you ban one weapon then that person who is hell bent on murder will simply use a different weapon
And you keep pretending that all weapons are equal.
They aren't
A baseball bat is a weapon...but much less lethal than a machine gun. No?
A shot gun is lethal...but far less lethal than a semi-auto magazine fed assault weapon
I do agree that all the career politicians are fucked up, and are the same...Progressives are not moderate… In fact it’s impossible for them to be soWell......loud is how you are heard. The left is loud via MSM. We don't have that, so we need to yell louder. All we really have is AM radio and Fox news. The MSM, Hollywood, education, the internet is all dominated by the left.
But because we yell louder doesn't mean we are wrong either.
In an 8 hour period in there, I saw just a couple or three posts by a few people. But there were 64 posts by the same 4 people trying to yell down everyone else though insulting posts. Your bunch tries to bury everyone elses inputs. It's hard to weed through all the Insulting Posts to get to the meat of the subject. Once your posts goes into the loud venue, people just stop reading it and your real message is lost whether its right or not.
So what you are saying is the left does not "yell?"
What you're really upset about is not the number of posts, but that you are outnumbered. The majority on this subject are pro-gun. Therefore for every one post a leftist makes, it's battled with four opposition posts regardless of who posts them. Insults? That comes from both sides if you've been here long enough to realize it. I object to insulting posts unless one is reacting to a personal attack. I do that myself, but I never draw first blood.
I like civil discussions when it comes to politics. Insults are teen chat room exchanges. I avoid participating with flamers if possible. Speaking for myself only of course, I conduct myself here as if we were discussing issues at a bar or club in person. I don't believe in hiding behind a keyboard and tossing insults at people that may be 500 miles or more from where I live.
I am so difficult to handle there ain't enough of you to go around. So you just get LOUD. I am not loud but I do have a message without the petty insults to try and make myself look smarter, better looking, etc.. I have noticed that you are easier to read than most. I just don't particularly agree with everything you have to say. But, hey, that's what makes life interesting.
Yes, the Left Yells but I don't. But I find, in here, the major source of "Yelling" is from the fringe group of guncrazies. Rather than discuss and actually coming up with a solution (and yes, any solution I see I will pass on to other voters) they start in insulting and degrading the other person. I can't speak for MSN since I don't listen to that. I can't speak for Talk Radio since I don't listen to that. And I can't speak for
Pauxsnews since I don't watch nor listen to that. I speak for myself and the community for which I live in who have made changes to confront all the evils that are being shouted out to cover up an chance of coming to a solution. Newsflash: There is always a solution for most problems if we stop yelling and insulting each other long enough.
Right now, the Right needs to clean it's act in here and out of here. Do it before you lose more than you can afford to lose. And put a cork on the NRA meddling in local elections. One of the reasons so many Dems were elected into the house is that the NRA put money against the other side and the voters said enough. And the people voted in are Moderates. That should scare the hell out of everyone that is in the fringe on both sides.
I happen to be a moderate yet you claim I am a Progressive. Actually, I am a Progressive. If you turn the clock back to the Eisenhower Days, I would be a Progressive Republican. Today, we really don't have a party. Both parties are just plain nuts and I don't see the other parties as any better. The Fruitcakes are in charge.
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.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
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.
If large mags give no advantage WHY THE FUCK DO YOU WANT TO BAN THEM
The only real difference is the muzzle velocity of the rounds
Because progressives don’t know their ass from a hole in the ground… They’re all just sporting rifles
The post never said it was. Wow, this is why people complsin with stupid people running around with these weapons.The .223 is a 22 caliber round you idiotPretty dogs carry the black plague… There are far too many of them, they deserve to die...
PRAIRIE dogs...can be hunted with a friggin .22. Hell you can use a tube loaded semi-auto for all I care. You can use a lever action 30-30 if you want to pay a buck a shot.
You DON'T need an assault weapon.
But note...Rustic SELLS guns so it's in his interest to sell as many as possible
LUsh said use a .22 instead of a .223 you moron so obviously he she it doesn't realize that a .223 is a .22 caliber round
...And no one has a right to vehicle ownership, but firearm ownership is an absolute right, Less someone fucks it up for themselves.The point that flew right over your blunt little head is that a person hell bent on killing people doesn't need a rifle and if you ban one weapon then that person who is hell bent on murder will simply use a different weapon
And you keep pretending that all weapons are equal.
They aren't
A baseball bat is a weapon...but much less lethal than a machine gun. No?
A shot gun is lethal...but far less lethal than a semi-auto magazine fed assault weapon
A truck with a snow plow is a weapon too.
and arguably as deadly as a firearm.
you're to thick to realize banning one rifle will not stop one murder
That picture posted earlier is a semi-auto, magazine fed shotgun, pants shitter. But, focus on the AR. That's brilliant.A shot gun is lethal...but far less lethal than a semi-auto magazine fed assault weapon
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.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
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.
If large mags give no advantage WHY THE FUCK DO YOU WANT TO BAN THEM
Here we go again. In our Aurora Theater shooting, he used a 100 round capacity mag. It jammed right around 50 rounds in. He switched to a shotgun and a handgun (semi auto). Believe it or not, this kept the body count down. And he was a terrible shot. He relied on the amount of ammo that the AR could put out to compensate for his lack of markmanship. And it did until it jammed. Almost all the dead and wounded were from the AR.
State governments are not allowed to stomp on the civil rights of citizens which is why the SCOTUS can deem a state law unconstitutional77777
Wrong.'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.Funny I never said anything about arming everyone
I do know disarming everyone (who would obey the law) won't lower the murder rate
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
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.
A community can ban any firearms but it MUST spell out the weapons. The ones that have failed all have been worded where it might apply to many other firearms as well. The ones that have succeeded and back by Federal Courts specifically spell out the exact weapon. The Phrase, "AR and it's various Clones" rather than describing the weapons is the way it's done now. And it sticks.
LolThe only real difference is the muzzle velocity of the rounds
Wow...you really are stupid on this subject. They are jacketed and muzzle velocity is a big deal dumfuk
Because progressives don’t know their ass from a hole in the ground… They’re all just sporting rifles
Which shoots your "we need them to defend against the gubmint) claim all to shit
A great cartridge
Buy more guns and ammo...The gun manufacturers solutions to mass shootings?
MORE, FREAKING GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
