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

[sealybobo]

I’m getting a Ruger 1911 45. Holds 8 plus 1. A smart regulation is to not make clips any bigger than this. It’s enough.

Good guys with guns can stop a bad guy with a gun as long as bad guy doesn’t have an assault rifle that can shoot or spray 40 bullets at a time.

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.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

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.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

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.

If people legally caring weapons were a danger then every gun show would be a blood bath. Next.

 

[Flash]

To have "common sense gun control laws" you have to have people with common sense enacting them. That ain't the case with Liberals. Liberals don't have a damn bit of common sense. For instance, the dumb mutherfuckers want to take away guns that are very seldom used in crimes away from the people that don't commit the crimes. That is the kind of idiots they are.

 

[sealybobo]

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

 

[sealybobo]

To have "common sense gun control laws" you have to have people with common sense enacting them. That ain't the case with Liberals. Liberals don't have a damn bit of common sense. For instance, the dumb mutherfuckers want to take away guns that are very seldom used in crimes away from the people that don't commit the crimes. That is the kind of idiots they are.

I admit that. Like I have a handgun ruger 45 1911. You just rack and shoot ten as fast as you want. Then you put a new clip in, rack and ten more.

I bet I could carry 100 clips.

So maybe we need to regulate the sale of all weapon parts sold. If you own a ruger 1911 then you can only legally buy 10 clips. You can trade damaged ones in for new ones but you can’t legally buy more than 10 clips.

What possible reason do you need more other than to go on a rampage?

Actually it should be 3 clips not ten. You should only be able to mass murder 30 people with any one gun.

There is a good regulation the gun lobbyists won’t like

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

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

I'm not giving up a Constitutional right and that's all there is to it. By the way none of the weapons used in these shootings were automatics.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Benjamin Franklin.

 

[sealybobo]

Our goal is to decrease the carnage. At this point I’m more worried a nuts gonna kill me than I am the government

 

[sealybobo]

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

I'm not giving up a Constitutional right and that's all there is to it. By the way none of the weapons used in these shootings were automatics.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Benjamin Franklin.

But you already have. You can still own a machine gun but look at all the regulations. And they have to be made before 1986. That means we don’t make them anymore.

So you mean you’re not giving up any more than you already have.

 

[2aguy]

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.

Considering that since the 1990s as more Americans not only own guns but actually carry them, our gun murder rate has gone down 49%, our gun crime rate is down 75%....not a lot of snapping going on. We do have a lot of shootings in democrat voting districts because of democrat policies on crime...but that is a democrat party issue, not a gun issue.

 

[2aguy]

Our goal is to decrease the carnage. At this point I’m more worried a nuts gonna kill me than I am the government

Stay out of the tiny, violent areas in democrat party controlled cities and you have nothing to worry about...check voting districts and stay out of the ones the voted democrat...since democrats are more likely to shoot other people...

And as more Americans own and carry guns, our gun murder rate went down 49%, our gun crime rate went down 75%.....so nothing you posted about is based in actual fact, or reality on the ground.

Analysis | The surprising way gun violence is dividing America

In the most Democratic regions, gun violence is more often committed against another, crimes that probably generate more news coverage and fear. In the most Republican areas, it is more often committed against oneself, suicides that may not attract as much attention.

------

As the below charts show, Democratic areas (measured by the party that controls the congressional district) are far more likely to experience almost all forms of malicious gun violence than Republican areas.

 

[2aguy]

To have "common sense gun control laws" you have to have people with common sense enacting them. That ain't the case with Liberals. Liberals don't have a damn bit of common sense. For instance, the dumb mutherfuckers want to take away guns that are very seldom used in crimes away from the people that don't commit the crimes. That is the kind of idiots they are.

I admit that. Like I have a handgun ruger 45 1911. You just rack and shoot ten as fast as you want. Then you put a new clip in, rack and ten more.

I bet I could carry 100 clips.

So maybe we need to regulate the sale of all weapon parts sold. If you own a ruger 1911 then you can only legally buy 10 clips. You can trade damaged ones in for new ones but you can’t legally buy more than 10 clips.

What possible reason do you need more other than to go on a rampage?

Actually it should be 3 clips not ten. You should only be able to mass murder 30 people with any one gun.

There is a good regulation the gun lobbyists won’t like

93 people were killed in 2018 by mass public shooters...... over 38,000 people killed in car accidents...in a country of over 320,000,000........gun magazines are not an issue in crime or mass shootings...as actual research shows.....so you can make up fake problems to push your gun control fantasies....but that is all they are, fantasies....

In fact.....if you want to limit death....ban rental trucks....a muslim terrorist in France murdered 86 people and injured 435 in 5 minutes of driving.....which puts him ahead of even the Vegas shooter who only managed to kill 59 using a rifle, firing from a concealed and fortified position against a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people ......

Ban rental trucks, not guns.....

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

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

-----


SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

 

[2aguy]

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.....

 

[2aguy]

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.

People don't "snap." They have long histories of crime and violence before they commit murder.....and of the few who kill without a prior history of crime? They have long histories of detectable mental illness that your god, "Government," seems to ignore until they kill people......that isn't snapping, those are ticking bombs brought to the attention of your god, "Government," which then fails to act...over and over again...

 

[Flash]

To have "common sense gun control laws" you have to have people with common sense enacting them. That ain't the case with Liberals. Liberals don't have a damn bit of common sense. For instance, the dumb mutherfuckers want to take away guns that are very seldom used in crimes away from the people that don't commit the crimes. That is the kind of idiots they are.

I admit that. Like I have a handgun ruger 45 1911. You just rack and shoot ten as fast as you want. Then you put a new clip in, rack and ten more.

I bet I could carry 100 clips.

So maybe we need to regulate the sale of all weapon parts sold. If you own a ruger 1911 then you can only legally buy 10 clips. You can trade damaged ones in for new ones but you can’t legally buy more than 10 clips.

What possible reason do you need more other than to go on a rampage?

Actually it should be 3 clips not ten. You should only be able to mass murder 30 people with any one gun.

There is a good regulation the gun lobbyists won’t like

93 people were killed in 2018 by mass public shooters...... over 38,000 people killed in car accidents...in a country of over 320,000,000........gun magazines are not an issue in crime or mass shootings...as actual research shows.....so you can make up fake problems to push your gun control fantasies....but that is all they are, fantasies....

In fact.....if you want to limit death....ban rental trucks....a muslim terrorist in France murdered 86 people and injured 435 in 5 minutes of driving.....which puts him ahead of even the Vegas shooter who only managed to kill 59 using a rifle, firing from a concealed and fortified position against a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people ......

Ban rental trucks, not guns.....

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

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

-----


SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

Don't confuse these stupid Moon Bats with facts. They don't want to hear facts. They just don't want you to have a firearm, even though it is your Constitutional right to have one. Just the kind of assholes they are.

 

[Flash]

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

 

[sealybobo]

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?

 

[sealybobo]

"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

 

[2aguy]

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?

Yes....until the actual attack is over you don't know how much ammunition you will need to save a life.

 

[Flash]

"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

Lets not. I have never done any damage with my 30 round "clips" so you can go fuck yourself.