I'm pro-gun - ask me anything!

[M14 Shooter]

How many guns do you own?, are you a hunter?

None. There was a terrible boating accident, see...
.I have been hunting, but not for some time.

 

[candycorn]

Ask me anything, and you'll get an honest answer.
Note that if your question contains falsehoods and/or logical fallacies, that honest answer will make light of same.
Note also that a number of your are on ignore, so if you don't get a response, you'll know why.
Fire away!

If you were being fired at by someone, wouldn’t you prefer they spend more time re-loading than firing at you?

I'm more concerned about cover and the ability to get away; absent either, I am more concerned about getting hits and not running out of ammo.
That's why my carry guns have 12 to 16 round magazines, with at least 1 reload on hand.
Why do you want me to run out of ammo?

You can talk all you want about rushing shooter during a split-second magazine change; in doing so you completely ignore the extraordinarily high probability that any person who would rush said shiooter would prefer to have a firearm on hand to shoot the shooter instead.

It was a simple yes or no.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Ask me anything, and you'll get an honest answer.
Note that if your question contains falsehoods and/or logical fallacies, that honest answer will make light of same.
Note also that a number of your are on ignore, so if you don't get a response, you'll know why.
Fire away!

If you were being fired at by someone, wouldn’t you prefer they spend more time re-loading than firing at you?

I'm more concerned about cover and the ability to get away; absent either, I am more concerned about getting hits and not running out of ammo.
That's why my carry guns have 12 to 16 round magazines, with at least 1 reload on hand.
Why do you want me to run out of ammo?

You can talk all you want about rushing shooter during a split-second magazine change; in doing so you completely ignore the extraordinarily high probability that any person who would rush said shiooter would prefer to have a firearm on hand to shoot the shooter instead.

It was a simple yes or no.

Obviously not.

 

[candycorn]

Ask me anything, and you'll get an honest answer.
Note that if your question contains falsehoods and/or logical fallacies, that honest answer will make light of same.
Note also that a number of your are on ignore, so if you don't get a response, you'll know why.
Fire away!

If you were being fired at by someone, wouldn’t you prefer they spend more time re-loading than firing at you?

I'm more concerned about cover and the ability to get away; absent either, I am more concerned about getting hits and not running out of ammo.
That's why my carry guns have 12 to 16 round magazines, with at least 1 reload on hand.
Why do you want me to run out of ammo?

You can talk all you want about rushing shooter during a split-second magazine change; in doing so you completely ignore the extraordinarily high probability that any person who would rush said shiooter would prefer to have a firearm on hand to shoot the shooter instead.

It was a simple yes or no.

Obviously not.

Would you prefer someone spending more time reloading than shooting? Yes or no.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Would you prefer someone spending more time reloading than shooting? Yes or no.

I already answered this.
Your false dichotomy fallacy does not take into account the totality of the situation, whatever it is.

 

[candycorn]

Would you prefer someone spending more time reloading than shooting? Yes or no.

I already answered this.
Your false dichotomy fallacy does not take into account the totality of the situation, whatever it is.

For those who have just joined us:

The question was this.

If you’re being shot at, do you prefer the shooter spend more time:

A. Shooting
B. Reloading

Any answer other than B is false.

It was a simple question. You can’t answer honestly because it would destroy your premise….

 

[M14 Shooter]

It was a simple question. You can’t answer honestly because it would destroy your premise….

I answered with 100% honesty - you offered a false dichotomy.

 

[candycorn]

It was a simple question. You can’t answer honestly because it would destroy your premise….

I answered with 100% honesty - you offered a false dichotomy.

ok

 

[2aguy]

Ask me anything, and you'll get an honest answer.

Note that if your question contains falsehoods and/or logical fallacies, that honest answer will make light of same.

Note also that a number of your are on ignore, so if you don't get a response, you'll know why.

Fire away!

If you were being fired at by someone, wouldn’t you prefer they spend more time re-loading than firing at you?

Limiting magazine sizes may do that.

I know that if a criminal is shooting at me, he will have whatever magazine he wants, since he doesn't care about the law....obviously from the fact that he is shooting at an innocent person.......so I would like to have as many bullets as I can carry......that would mean the standard magazine for the pistol I own, without people like you telling me how many bullets I can use to save my life, or the life of my familly.

 

[2aguy]

Would you prefer someone spending more time reloading than shooting? Yes or no.

I already answered this.
Your false dichotomy fallacy does not take into account the totality of the situation, whatever it is.

For those who have just joined us:

The question was this.

If you’re being shot at, do you prefer the shooter spend more time:

A. Shooting
B. Reloading

Any answer other than B is false.

It was a simple question. You can’t answer honestly because it would destroy your premise….

Your question isn't accurate....it doesn't ask a question based on actual firearm knowledge or knowledge about self defense.

 

[candycorn]

Ask me anything, and you'll get an honest answer.

Note that if your question contains falsehoods and/or logical fallacies, that honest answer will make light of same.

Note also that a number of your are on ignore, so if you don't get a response, you'll know why.

Fire away!

If you were being fired at by someone, wouldn’t you prefer they spend more time re-loading than firing at you?

Limiting magazine sizes may do that.

I know that if a criminal is shooting at me, he will have whatever magazine he wants, since he doesn't care about the law....obviously from the fact that he is shooting at an innocent person.......so I would like to have as many bullets as I can carry......that would mean the standard magazine for the pistol I own, without people like you telling me how many bullets I can use to save my life, or the life of my familly.

Its true he will have whatever is available to him. If you are Adam Lanza, you only have what is available to you in your mom’s safe. She, as far as we know, was’t a criminal. So if she was limited to a musket and dry powder, little Adam would have had access to a musket with dry powder.

You fail.

 

[candycorn]

Would you prefer someone spending more time reloading than shooting? Yes or no.

I already answered this.
Your false dichotomy fallacy does not take into account the totality of the situation, whatever it is.

For those who have just joined us:

The question was this.

If you’re being shot at, do you prefer the shooter spend more time:

A. Shooting
B. Reloading

Any answer other than B is false.

It was a simple question. You can’t answer honestly because it would destroy your premise….

Your question isn't accurate....it doesn't ask a question based on actual firearm knowledge or knowledge about self defense.

The question isn’t accurate? Wow…thats a first. LOL….

The question does what it was designed to do...It exposes the idiocy of the opposition to magazine size.

 

[2aguy]

Ask me anything, and you'll get an honest answer.

Note that if your question contains falsehoods and/or logical fallacies, that honest answer will make light of same.

Note also that a number of your are on ignore, so if you don't get a response, you'll know why.

Fire away!

If you were being fired at by someone, wouldn’t you prefer they spend more time re-loading than firing at you?

Limiting magazine sizes may do that.

I know that if a criminal is shooting at me, he will have whatever magazine he wants, since he doesn't care about the law....obviously from the fact that he is shooting at an innocent person.......so I would like to have as many bullets as I can carry......that would mean the standard magazine for the pistol I own, without people like you telling me how many bullets I can use to save my life, or the life of my familly.

Its true he will have whatever is available to him. If you are Adam Lanza, you only have what is available to you in your mom’s safe. She, as far as we know, was’t a criminal. So if she was limited to a musket and dry powder, little Adam would have had access to a musket with dry powder.

You fail.

He was perfectly capable of buying his own rifle, since he would have passed any background check. You are wrong again.

 

[candycorn]

Ask me anything, and you'll get an honest answer.

Note that if your question contains falsehoods and/or logical fallacies, that honest answer will make light of same.

Note also that a number of your are on ignore, so if you don't get a response, you'll know why.

Fire away!

If you were being fired at by someone, wouldn’t you prefer they spend more time re-loading than firing at you?

Limiting magazine sizes may do that.

I know that if a criminal is shooting at me, he will have whatever magazine he wants, since he doesn't care about the law....obviously from the fact that he is shooting at an innocent person.......so I would like to have as many bullets as I can carry......that would mean the standard magazine for the pistol I own, without people like you telling me how many bullets I can use to save my life, or the life of my familly.

Its true he will have whatever is available to him. If you are Adam Lanza, you only have what is available to you in your mom’s safe. She, as far as we know, was’t a criminal. So if she was limited to a musket and dry powder, little Adam would have had access to a musket with dry powder.

You fail.

He was perfectly capable of buying his own rifle, since he would have passed any background check. You are wrong again.

Yeah but he didn’t see… you’re speculating.

Another fail on your part.

 

[2aguy]

Would you prefer someone spending more time reloading than shooting? Yes or no.

I already answered this.
Your false dichotomy fallacy does not take into account the totality of the situation, whatever it is.

For those who have just joined us:

The question was this.

If you’re being shot at, do you prefer the shooter spend more time:

A. Shooting
B. Reloading

Any answer other than B is false.

It was a simple question. You can’t answer honestly because it would destroy your premise….

Your question isn't accurate....it doesn't ask a question based on actual firearm knowledge or knowledge about self defense.

The question isn’t accurate? Wow…thats a first. LOL….

The question does what it was designed to do...It exposes the idiocy of the opposition to magazine size.

No, it doesn't....since a mass public shooter fires his weapon in a calm and relaxed way, since he is facing unarmed victims....how do we know this? Because the victims of mass public shootings tell us that that is how the shooters behaved during the shooting.....reloading for the mass public shooter is not an issue, they are not under threat in a gun free zone.

A law abiding gun owner, however, needs to be able to decide how much ammo they might need, since they will be under attack, likely alone, and only able to rely on the ammo they have on hand...so you limiting them puts their lives at risk.

Here.....learn a little bit about the topic before you post...

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.
---------
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.

 

[2aguy]

Ask me anything, and you'll get an honest answer.

Note that if your question contains falsehoods and/or logical fallacies, that honest answer will make light of same.

Note also that a number of your are on ignore, so if you don't get a response, you'll know why.

Fire away!

If you were being fired at by someone, wouldn’t you prefer they spend more time re-loading than firing at you?

Limiting magazine sizes may do that.

I know that if a criminal is shooting at me, he will have whatever magazine he wants, since he doesn't care about the law....obviously from the fact that he is shooting at an innocent person.......so I would like to have as many bullets as I can carry......that would mean the standard magazine for the pistol I own, without people like you telling me how many bullets I can use to save my life, or the life of my familly.

Its true he will have whatever is available to him. If you are Adam Lanza, you only have what is available to you in your mom’s safe. She, as far as we know, was’t a criminal. So if she was limited to a musket and dry powder, little Adam would have had access to a musket with dry powder.

You fail.

He was perfectly capable of buying his own rifle, since he would have passed any background check. You are wrong again.

Yeah but he didn’t see… you’re speculating.

Another fail on your part.

No...you are speculating, I am telling you the facts.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The question isn’t accurate? Wow…thats a first. LOL….
The question does what it was designed to do...It exposes the idiocy of the opposition to magazine size.

The questoin was a false dichotomy - it allowed for only two valid responses when more exist.
You failed.

 

[candycorn]

The question isn’t accurate? Wow…thats a first. LOL….
The question does what it was designed to do...It exposes the idiocy of the opposition to magazine size.

The questoin was a false dichotomy - it allowed for only two valid responses when more exist.
You failed.

Rubbish.

 

[candycorn]

If you were being fired at by someone, wouldn’t you prefer they spend more time re-loading than firing at you?

Limiting magazine sizes may do that.

I know that if a criminal is shooting at me, he will have whatever magazine he wants, since he doesn't care about the law....obviously from the fact that he is shooting at an innocent person.......so I would like to have as many bullets as I can carry......that would mean the standard magazine for the pistol I own, without people like you telling me how many bullets I can use to save my life, or the life of my familly.

Its true he will have whatever is available to him. If you are Adam Lanza, you only have what is available to you in your mom’s safe. She, as far as we know, was’t a criminal. So if she was limited to a musket and dry powder, little Adam would have had access to a musket with dry powder.

You fail.

He was perfectly capable of buying his own rifle, since he would have passed any background check. You are wrong again.

Yeah but he didn’t see… you’re speculating.

Another fail on your part.

No...you are speculating, I am telling you the facts.

Did he buy his own rifle?

Thanks...you’re speculating and are a total failure

 

[candycorn]

Would you prefer someone spending more time reloading than shooting? Yes or no.

I already answered this.
Your false dichotomy fallacy does not take into account the totality of the situation, whatever it is.

For those who have just joined us:

The question was this.

If you’re being shot at, do you prefer the shooter spend more time:

A. Shooting
B. Reloading

Any answer other than B is false.

It was a simple question. You can’t answer honestly because it would destroy your premise….

Your question isn't accurate....it doesn't ask a question based on actual firearm knowledge or knowledge about self defense.

The question isn’t accurate? Wow…thats a first. LOL….

The question does what it was designed to do...It exposes the idiocy of the opposition to magazine size.

No, it doesn't....since a mass public shooter fires his weapon in a calm and relaxed way, since he is facing unarmed victims....how do we know this? Because the victims of mass public shootings tell us that that is how the shooters behaved during the shooting.....reloading for the mass public shooter is not an issue, they are not under threat in a gun free zone.

A law abiding gun owner, however, needs to be able to decide how much ammo they might need, since they will be under attack, likely alone, and only able to rely on the ammo they have on hand...so you limiting them puts their lives at risk.

Here.....learn a little bit about the topic before you post...

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.
---------
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.

Fewer bullets per mag means more time reloading and not firing. The Great Wall of nonsense you posted doesn’t change anything