Common sense gun regulations are not about taking guns away from everyone

[progressive hunter]

My father had guns and we shot them. He sighted for me when I was under ten. He never flourished them on street corners and cautioned me never, ever to point a gun unless I seriously had to use it. But that was back in the time that Americans were civilized and responsible people.

Now we are dealing with animals who have rapid-fire weapons of war that they prance around with on street corners, people who carry loaded guns while gathered on street corners, and in public places: restaurants, movie theaters, the public streets, and assert on the internet that they are "locked and loaded." Now that we are "gifted" with these uncivilized tribal louts, we have to deal with guns in a different and more restrictive manner.

How about that guy who murdered a co-worker the other day when he was getting out of his truck. WTF was the truck driver doing with a loaded gun on a worksite?

you've been eating to many koo-koo puffs darlin,,,,

 

[pismoe]

My father had guns and we shot them. He sighted for me when I was under ten. He never flourished them on street corners and cautioned me never, ever to point a gun unless I seriously had to use it. But that was back in the time that Americans were civilized and responsible people.

Now we are dealing with animals who have rapid-fire weapons of war that they prance around with on street corners, people who carry loaded guns while gathered on street corners, and in public places: restaurants, movie theaters, the public streets, and assert on the internet that they are "locked and loaded." Now that we are "gifted" with these uncivilized tribal louts, we have to deal with guns in a different and more restrictive manner.

How about that guy who murdered a co-worker the other day when he was getting out of his truck. WTF was the truck driver doing with a loaded gun on a worksite?

----------------------------------- quit importing the 'third world' savages and their animal and criminal culture Lysis .

 

[pismoe]

yeah . the POLICE and 'tony blair' and then the 'queen' of ' england ' and President Trump and 'hollywood stars' and 'dianne feinstein' have bodyguards prancing about with Weapons of War. Are the people and taxpayer paid political public servants that i mention SPECIAL or what Lysis ??

 

[sealybobo]

People can do a lot more damage with a 20 clip than they can a ten.

Let’s just limit clips to ten and the most clips you can buy per gun is 6

That is in fact, untrue......as actual research shows...

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?
========
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.
==========
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

-----

Ridiculous. Only the shooters themselves feel the nerves and shock of what it’s like to murder lots of people. Most people would stumble for the next round. They’d be shaking. They’ve never experienced anything like it before.

You can practice all you want and be real quick practicing. Real life is different story

Again.....you have no idea what you are talking about......you make things up and present them as if they are true....actual research shows you are wrong...on all counts.

Research from the judge?

Use common sense.

Is it quicker to shoot two 10 round clips or a 20? Duh. You can’t say that’s not true. Neither can the judge

As the actual research shows, mass shooters are not in a hurry, and change magazines easily and often.....you should really try to understand an issue before you comment on it.

Well it does slow them down. Maybe not much but seconds matter

 

[progressive hunter]

A Closer Look At The 2012 Gun Ban That’s Helping Maduro Stay In Power

 

[sealybobo]

I’m just saying I don’t mind to learn my hunting rifle is only 3+1. I think that makes sense and would be ok if they never made them with more.

The nuts usually go buy their shit at the store. They aren’t going on the black market to find higher capacity rounds and ways to maximize damage. Some do but most just work with what’s available. Or what their parents have.

I wish klebolt and Harris parents only had five round revolvers.

The answer is simple...

Yet you don’t want anything stopping us from getting guns? Or any system that might catch and stop a nut?

Unfortunately casualties are a terrible byproduct of freedom and liberty.
Government regulation of freedom and liberty sucks...We have plenty now.
Why not prefer the imposition of a full police state in Democratic strongholds...Why not impose our will on the bad guys only?

We do. Blue states have different laws than red ones. People in red states don’t have to deal with the kinds of people we have to deal with if you know what I mean.

For example some red states allow conceal carry without a permit. Republicans in Michigan almost passed it but I’m sure they didn’t want blacks to be able to carry guns freely without having to first go through the class and jump through the hoops.

You know who hates guns? Cops.

Lol
You’re wrong, any self-respecting lawman Encourages law abiding firearm ownership...
Keep your fucking socialism to yourselves

Cops don’t want the people they ticket all having guns. You’re mistaken.

 

[sealybobo]

Have any of you ever experienced buck fever?

Lol
“Buck fever” is the lack of preparation...

Adrenaline

 

[sealybobo]

i think that most everyone knows WHO 'mrguncontrol' is eh !! [chuckle]

Trump slipped when he said he’d take the guns first then go to court over it later.

In other words eventually the gop is going to have to leave the nra. If and when it starts costing them elections. The more liberal people get the more common sense gun regulations will follow. Until then you’re right.

Do you think Americans 100 years will even notice if all they can buy are revolvers and hunting rifles that only take 4 bullets? I don’t think so. They’ll understand there are too many nuts in the USA to allow anyone and everyone to have wmds.

Don’t worry you can still carry 4 guns.

Maybe in the future only one gun per citizen. One revolver and hunting rifle.

If that’s what it was now I guess I’d be happy with my revolver.

Right now I can shoot 10 plus 1 and I have two 8 round clips. I could easily take out 27.

Too much.

 

[sealybobo]

The answer is simple...

Yet you don’t want anything stopping us from getting guns? Or any system that might catch and stop a nut?

Unfortunately casualties are a terrible byproduct of freedom and liberty.
Government regulation of freedom and liberty sucks...We have plenty now.
Why not prefer the imposition of a full police state in Democratic strongholds...Why not impose our will on the bad guys only?

We do. Blue states have different laws than red ones. People in red states don’t have to deal with the kinds of people we have to deal with if you know what I mean.

For example some red states allow conceal carry without a permit. Republicans in Michigan almost passed it but I’m sure they didn’t want blacks to be able to carry guns freely without having to first go through the class and jump through the hoops.

You know who hates guns? Cops.

Lol
You’re wrong, any self-respecting lawman Encourages law abiding firearm ownership...
Keep your fucking socialism to yourselves

they know, I posted the article from PoliceOne, where actual cops stated in a survey they support civilians having guns.

Yes having guns but not in the car

 

[miketx]

“Common sense gun regulations are not about taking guns away from everyone”

True.

In fact, there are common sense measures that can be taken having nothing to do with the regulation of firearms, such as universal background checks and ensuring the states have the funding and ability to update the NICS database in a timely manner.

But the NRA and most on the right continue to propagate their ridiculous lie and slippery slope fallacy that common sense measures will lead to the ‘banning’ of all guns and their eventual ‘confiscation.’

Cut the crap. Gun bans have been the left's goal for decades

I feel you and people like you will no longer be tolerated.
There is a tsunami of emotion and actions, led by the young, that will drive you into your rat hole.

Same ones that eat tide pods?

I'm not too concerned

You should be concerned. You support the narrative of the Russians who hacked our election. Are you a Russian. Are you one of the stupid ones who were organized by Russians

Here's your award for the most deranged comment of the day.

 

[westwall]

Common sense gun regulations are not about taking guns away from everyone
NRA and supporters say common sense gun regulations are the government attempting to take guns away from law abiding citizens.
Bull Shit - it is an evil attempt to confuse logical arguments for gun control. Those who confuse the discussion with lies all have blood on their hands.

Yeah, they are.

 

[pismoe]

The answer is simple...

Yet you don’t want anything stopping us from getting guns? Or any system that might catch and stop a nut?

Unfortunately casualties are a terrible byproduct of freedom and liberty.
Government regulation of freedom and liberty sucks...We have plenty now.
Why not prefer the imposition of a full police state in Democratic strongholds...Why not impose our will on the bad guys only?

We do. Blue states have different laws than red ones. People in red states don’t have to deal with the kinds of people we have to deal with if you know what I mean.

For example some red states allow conceal carry without a permit. Republicans in Michigan almost passed it but I’m sure they didn’t want blacks to be able to carry guns freely without having to first go through the class and jump through the hoops.

You know who hates guns? Cops.

Lol
You’re wrong, any self-respecting lawman Encourages law abiding firearm ownership...
Keep your fucking socialism to yourselves

Cops don’t want the people they ticket all having guns. You’re mistaken.

----------------------------i don't know . i have always heard the Police Support Armed Citizens . Doesn't really matter though does it Sealy . Police Voluntarily took a job as Police that they wanted to be and seems to me that they have to put up with Armed Americans no matter if they like their Armed Employers or don't like their Armed Employers Sealy .

 

[pismoe]

Yet you don’t want anything stopping us from getting guns? Or any system that might catch and stop a nut?

Unfortunately casualties are a terrible byproduct of freedom and liberty.
Government regulation of freedom and liberty sucks...We have plenty now.
Why not prefer the imposition of a full police state in Democratic strongholds...Why not impose our will on the bad guys only?

We do. Blue states have different laws than red ones. People in red states don’t have to deal with the kinds of people we have to deal with if you know what I mean.

For example some red states allow conceal carry without a permit. Republicans in Michigan almost passed it but I’m sure they didn’t want blacks to be able to carry guns freely without having to first go through the class and jump through the hoops.

You know who hates guns? Cops.

Lol
You’re wrong, any self-respecting lawman Encourages law abiding firearm ownership...
Keep your fucking socialism to yourselves

they know, I posted the article from PoliceOne, where actual cops stated in a survey they support civilians having guns.

Yes having guns but not in the car

-------------------------- yeah , thats one law that the Criminals will OBEY eh ??

 

[eflatminor]

But I do go for common sense gun laws.

What exactly is it about "...shall not be infringed" that is confusing to you? You're allowed to not care about your rights, but you do understand what you "go for" is infringing on others rights, yes?

 

[miketx]

gun controllers , lefties , dems and many 'repubs' and 'mrguncontrol' himself want to turn gun ownership in the USA into a FAVOR Granted by 'govenment' just like its a favor granted by 'government' in 'england' , 'wales' and other places and 'governments' .

Just because you said so doesn't make it real.

Let me introduce myself. When pssmet says "Mrguncontrol" he's talking about me. I don't say one way or another. But I do go for common sense gun laws. If I wanted a gun today, I can get one....LEGALLY. Common Sense Gun laws don't prevent me from having almost any reasonable gun that is made today. Since I have no criminal record, don't beat the wife or terrorize the kids, I don't have a problem purchasing, owning and using a gun. I also don't cry my little head off that 'They are coming to take all my guns' like some do in here. If you are worried about "Them" coming to take all your guns, you are either up to no good or loony enough to maybe warrant the court to remove your right to own since you are a threat to society. Either way works for me. If you do not fit in either of those categories then you should follow your local, state and federal laws. And only after that, you have the right to own that gun.

Or you can do what pssmet does and keep screaming that the sky is falling.

What are those common sense laws?

 

[daveman]

Why would it be better to limit the ability to kill to eight people in lieu of nine people or twenty people? Some otherwise logical people seem to get fascinated by the number of people killed, versus the fact that people are killed.

Children are killed, all over this country, at school, on the way to school, or on the way home from school, every day, and few seem to notice. So, what is the magic number of dead people that causes so much concern? It is obviously not the deaths, it is the numbers of deaths that creates the concern.

There is no ultimate solve all solution. The goal is to lower the number of people a nut can kill because guns aren’t going away.

You’re talking about a completely different problem. Why people kill. I’m just trying to lower the number of people they can kill. I wish none of us could get a ten round clip because they don’t make them.

And my Ruger bushmaster only holds 4. And you have to do the thing each time to unload the spent cartridge and put another in the chamber. I couldn’t do the kind of damage the Vegas shooter did. Or the guys on the movie heat with their assault weapons. That was based on a real case. Those weapons shouldn’t be available.

Solve the crazy male problem first then I’ll consider letting anyone own and carry a gun.

So, you are content to suffer shootings, as long as the body count is low? How liberal of you.

What do you suggest we do to stop the shootings?

It's so insanely simple.

LET PEOPLE CARRY WEAPONS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AND OTHERS.

Let people carry weapons so they can slaughter people when they snap.

There are far more defensive gun uses than offensive.

But you just keep spouting your Moms Demand Action propaganda.

 

[pismoe]

There is no ultimate solve all solution. The goal is to lower the number of people a nut can kill because guns aren’t going away.

You’re talking about a completely different problem. Why people kill. I’m just trying to lower the number of people they can kill. I wish none of us could get a ten round clip because they don’t make them.

And my Ruger bushmaster only holds 4. And you have to do the thing each time to unload the spent cartridge and put another in the chamber. I couldn’t do the kind of damage the Vegas shooter did. Or the guys on the movie heat with their assault weapons. That was based on a real case. Those weapons shouldn’t be available.

Solve the crazy male problem first then I’ll consider letting anyone own and carry a gun.

So, you are content to suffer shootings, as long as the body count is low? How liberal of you.

What do you suggest we do to stop the shootings?

It's so insanely simple.

LET PEOPLE CARRY WEAPONS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AND OTHERS.

Let people carry weapons so they can slaughter people when they snap.

There are far more defensive gun uses than offensive.

But you just keep spouting your Moms Demand Action propaganda.

------------------------ !!

 

[daveman]

Common sense gun regulations are not about taking guns away from everyone
NRA and supporters say common sense gun regulations are the government attempting to take guns away from law abiding citizens.
Bull Shit - it is an evil attempt to confuse logical arguments for gun control. Those who confuse the discussion with lies all have blood on their hands.

Your so called "Common Sense" regulations always include some type of ban on certain types of firearms. You can pretty it up all you want but that is taking guns away from law abiding citizens. Making it more expensive to own a firearm is effectively taking guns away from people.

The Constitution is very specific on the Governments right to infringement on firearm ownership. No.

Listen. You know the automatics the criminals used in heat? I wouldn’t be upset to know that in 100 years weapons like that no longer exist.

What will it take? Will it take 100 isis sleeper cells to one day take guns like this out in all 50 states and wreak havoc on 50 major cities taking out 1000 in each city? So in one day a group of bad people take out 50,000 people.

Would you still want those guns made available?

Or is your solution we should have good citizens walking around ready for such an incident?

Maybe there are some weapons that should not be given to average citizens? Too many nuts.

I wish everyone who’s a bra nut could experience the loss of a love one to a gun wacko. I wonder if they would change their opinion.

We should ask sandy hook parents if they were gun nuts before and are they still.

Or the survivors of the Vegas shooter

But remember, kids, terrorists and criminals will definitely obey "common sense gun laws".

Meanwhile, you just wished that legal gun owners have a loved one killed by a wacko.

You need your weapons seized by the government. You're obviously too unstable to own them.

 

[daveman]

Common sense gun regulations are not about taking guns away from everyone
NRA and supporters say common sense gun regulations are the government attempting to take guns away from law abiding citizens.
Bull Shit - it is an evil attempt to confuse logical arguments for gun control. Those who confuse the discussion with lies all have blood on their hands.

Your so called "Common Sense" regulations always include some type of ban on certain types of firearms. You can pretty it up all you want but that is taking guns away from law abiding citizens. Making it more expensive to own a firearm is effectively taking guns away from people.

The Constitution is very specific on the Governments right to infringement on firearm ownership. No.

Listen. You know the automatics the criminals used in heat? I wouldn’t be upset to know that in 100 years weapons like that no longer exist.

What will it take? Will it take 100 isis sleeper cells to one day take guns like this out in all 50 states and wreak havoc on 50 major cities taking out 1000 in each city? So in one day a group of bad people take out 50,000 people.

Would you still want those guns made available?

Or is your solution we should have good citizens walking around ready for such an incident?

Maybe there are some weapons that should not be given to average citizens? Too many nuts.

I wish everyone who’s a bra nut could experience the loss of a love one to a gun wacko. I wonder if they would change their opinion.

We should ask sandy hook parents if they were gun nuts before and are they still.

Or the survivors of the Vegas shooter

How about the experience of the 1.1 million Americans who use their legal guns to save the lives of loved ones from violent criminals that the democrat party judges, politicians and prosecutors keep letting out of jail? They have a vastly different experience with legal guns, which they use to save lives, and they would tell you that you are an idiot who doesn't understand the issue.....

Did any of them need more than three clips to save their love ones?

If you don't even know the difference between "clips" and "magazines", you have no business attempting to speak authoritatively on firearms.

 

[daveman]

"Common sense" is understanding and adhering to the Bill of Rights.

People can do a lot more damage with a 20 clip than they can a ten.

Let’s just limit clips to ten and the most clips you can buy per gun is 6

That is in fact, untrue......as actual research shows...

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?
========
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.
==========
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

-----

Ridiculous. Only the shooters themselves feel the nerves and shock of what it’s like to murder lots of people. Most people would stumble for the next round. They’d be shaking. They’ve never experienced anything like it before.

You can practice all you want and be real quick practicing. Real life is different story

You don't even know basic firearm vocabulary. Stop talking, you ignorant buffoon.