CDZ Let's talk about bump-stocks, banana clips and other gun accessories

[OldLady]

Semi automatic weapons do NOT mimic full auto, never have never will. And the size of a magazine has nothing to do with anything.

Explain why there is no difference between reloading every five bullets and reloading every thirty.

Look retard the time it takes to change a magazine is about 1 second. Or less.

Don't call me a retard, Sgt.
2-3 seconds is what gun experts say, under optimal conditions.
Green explained that a shooter needs 1.5 seconds to switch out a magazine and every five-round magazine takes about one to two seconds to unload.

He conceded that during a mass shooting, killers are faced with a stressful environment, including a lot of screaming people, so it might take a killer a little more time to reload. But he and other experts argue that having to switch out magazines is just a short delay for a murderer.
Gun Experts: Limits on Magazine Size Will Only Slow Determined Killer Down by a Few Seconds

 

[OldLady]

Semi automatic weapons do NOT mimic full auto, never have never will. And the size of a magazine has nothing to do with anything.

Explain why there is no difference between reloading every five bullets and reloading every thirty.

about a 30 second difference.

That's a lot of time when you are trying to run, duck, hide. I know it's only a few seconds at a time. It might mean a few lives.

Question: Where do shooters keep all these clips? The Parkland shooter was described as wearing a red shirt--no flak jacket. So where did he keep all the clips? Mighty big pockets? I've been wondering about that.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Semi automatic weapons do NOT mimic full auto, never have never will. And the size of a magazine has nothing to do with anything.

Explain why there is no difference between reloading every five bullets and reloading every thirty.

about a 30 second difference.

That's a lot of time when you are trying to run, duck, hide. I know it's only a few seconds at a time. It might mean a few lives.

Question: Where do shooters keep all these clips? The Parkland shooter was described as wearing a red shirt--no flak jacket. So where did he keep all the clips? Mighty big pockets? I've been wondering about that.

It takes less then a second to change a magazine you simply drop the one in the well and replace it.

 

[TNHarley]

Semi automatic weapons do NOT mimic full auto, never have never will. And the size of a magazine has nothing to do with anything.

Explain why there is no difference between reloading every five bullets and reloading every thirty.

about a 30 second difference.

That's a lot of time when you are trying to run, duck, hide. I know it's only a few seconds at a time. It might mean a few lives.

Question: Where do shooters keep all these clips? The Parkland shooter was described as wearing a red shirt--no flak jacket. So where did he keep all the clips? Mighty big pockets? I've been wondering about that.

That was a magazine, not a clip.
You can buy belts and straps that hold many magazines.

 

[pismoe]

Semi automatic weapons do NOT mimic full auto, never have never will. And the size of a magazine has nothing to do with anything.

Explain why there is no difference between reloading every five bullets and reloading every thirty.

about a 30 second difference.

That's a lot of time when you are trying to run, duck, hide. I know it's only a few seconds at a time. It might mean a few lives.

Question: Where do shooters keep all these clips? The Parkland shooter was described as wearing a red shirt--no flak jacket. So where did he keep all the clips? Mighty big pockets? I've been wondering about that.

 

[pismoe]

here you go OldLady , --- Don’t Call a ‘Magazine’ a ‘Clip’: We Spoke With an Ex-SEAL About the Difference and Why It’s Important ---

 

[9thIDdoc]

I am a firm believer that we have an inalienable right to defend our lives and liberty by any reasonable means, including the use of firearms. However, I do not believe this right extends to owning weapons and accessories designed to inflict mass casualties. That is why I oppose their manufacture, sale or possession by private individuals. (I also believe that possession of a gun during the commission of a felony should result in an additional 10 year jail sentence.)

The Second Amendment does not protect the private ownership of machine guns, so why should weapons and accessories that mimic them be protected?
I do not see this as a panacea for mass shootings, but I do think there should be some limits on their availability to dangerous and mentally unstable people. Would that constitute an intolerable imposition on the rest of us?

"I am a firm believer that we have an inalienable right to defend our lives and liberty by any reasonable means, including the use of firearms. However, I do not believe this right extends to owning weapons and accessories designed to inflict mass casualties."

The problem with that is that those are two contradictory statements. You simply can't have it both ways. In general any gun that is effective as a defensive weapon is about as effective as an offensive weapon and vice versa. The same weapon that does a good job at putting venison on the table and protecting sheep from wolves is equally lethal if you shoot your next door neighbor. It is up to the shooter to supply the intent.
Of course the right was intended to include highly lethal weapons. Don't forget that the Bill of Rights came from a people that had been shooting cannons at Redcoats and were very aware of the possibility of that happening again.

"...but I do think there should be some limits on their availability to dangerous and mentally unstable people. Would that constitute an intolerable imposition on the rest of us?"

There are. The problem lies in recognizing and dealing with these people before they act on their insanity. To compound the problem is that it is absolutely vital that no person or group is given the power to arbitrarily decide who will be denied their Constitutional Rights without due process.

 

[OldLady]

Semi automatic weapons do NOT mimic full auto, never have never will. And the size of a magazine has nothing to do with anything.

Explain why there is no difference between reloading every five bullets and reloading every thirty.

about a 30 second difference.

That's a lot of time when you are trying to run, duck, hide. I know it's only a few seconds at a time. It might mean a few lives.

Question: Where do shooters keep all these clips? The Parkland shooter was described as wearing a red shirt--no flak jacket. So where did he keep all the clips? Mighty big pockets? I've been wondering about that.

That was a magazine, not a clip.
You can buy belts and straps that hold many magazines.

Ah, the names are not interchangeable; I will have to google it. So he must have been wearing a belt and dropped it before he ran.

 

[OldLady]

here you go OldLady , --- Don’t Call a ‘Magazine’ a ‘Clip’: We Spoke With an Ex-SEAL About the Difference and Why It’s Important ---

Thank you, Pismoe. That saved me time googling.

 

[TNHarley]

Semi automatic weapons do NOT mimic full auto, never have never will. And the size of a magazine has nothing to do with anything.

Explain why there is no difference between reloading every five bullets and reloading every thirty.

about a 30 second difference.

That's a lot of time when you are trying to run, duck, hide. I know it's only a few seconds at a time. It might mean a few lives.

Question: Where do shooters keep all these clips? The Parkland shooter was described as wearing a red shirt--no flak jacket. So where did he keep all the clips? Mighty big pockets? I've been wondering about that.

That was a magazine, not a clip.
You can buy belts and straps that hold many magazines.

Ah, the names are not interchangeable; I will have to google it. So he must have been wearing a belt and dropped it before he ran.

Didnt he have a bag of some sort anyways? Maybe i am wrong but i seem to recall an uber picking him up with a large duffel bag or something.

 

[pismoe]

17 were shot , thats one 20 round magazine thats already loaded in the rifle . And with a spare in the back pocket thats 40 rounds . So say he had 4 - 20 rounders . Thats 2 in a pair of cargo pants pockets , one in a back pocket and one in the Rifle for 80 rounds at the ready . ------------------------ BAN Cargo pants , but before you do that realize that it wouldn't be a big load in a pair of blue jeans or loose fitting 'hip hopper' type pants . ------------------------------ i hope that 'diane feinstein' doesn't see this post .

 

[OldLady]

Explain why there is no difference between reloading every five bullets and reloading every thirty.

about a 30 second difference.

That's a lot of time when you are trying to run, duck, hide. I know it's only a few seconds at a time. It might mean a few lives.

Question: Where do shooters keep all these clips? The Parkland shooter was described as wearing a red shirt--no flak jacket. So where did he keep all the clips? Mighty big pockets? I've been wondering about that.

That was a magazine, not a clip.
You can buy belts and straps that hold many magazines.

Ah, the names are not interchangeable; I will have to google it. So he must have been wearing a belt and dropped it before he ran.

Didnt he have a bag of some sort anyways? Maybe i am wrong but i seem to recall an uber picking him up with a large duffel bag or something.

He did have a black bag with him. I thought he probably took out the gun and accessories and left it in the bathroom, where he unloaded it. You think he kept it on and that's where he was holding the magazines? That would be awkward to grab from, though. I would think.

 

[TNHarley]

about a 30 second difference.

That's a lot of time when you are trying to run, duck, hide. I know it's only a few seconds at a time. It might mean a few lives.

Question: Where do shooters keep all these clips? The Parkland shooter was described as wearing a red shirt--no flak jacket. So where did he keep all the clips? Mighty big pockets? I've been wondering about that.

That was a magazine, not a clip.
You can buy belts and straps that hold many magazines.

Ah, the names are not interchangeable; I will have to google it. So he must have been wearing a belt and dropped it before he ran.

Didnt he have a bag of some sort anyways? Maybe i am wrong but i seem to recall an uber picking him up with a large duffel bag or something.

He did have a black bag with him. I thought he probably took out the gun and accessories and left it in the bathroom, where he unloaded it. You think he kept it on and that's where he was holding the magazines? That would be awkward to grab from, though. I would think.

No frikkin clue, my dear

 

[2aguy]

No ones cares about bump stocks the NRA has already been on record supporting their ban....

Yet I read in my paper this a.m. that the Maine legislature thinks it is too "complicated" an issue to consider with only three weeks left in the session.
Not even this will be considered.

Good......a Security Theater ban of bump stocks is stupid anyway...

 

[2aguy]

I am a firm believer that we have an inalienable right to defend our lives and liberty by any reasonable means, including the use of firearms. However, I do not believe this right extends to owning weapons and accessories designed to inflict mass casualties. That is why I oppose their manufacture, sale or possession by private individuals. (I also believe that possession of a gun during the commission of a felony should result in an additional 10 year jail sentence.)

The Second Amendment does not protect the private ownership of machine guns, so why should weapons and accessories that mimic them be protected?
I do not see this as a panacea for mass shootings, but I do think there should be some limits on their availability to dangerous and mentally unstable people. Would that constitute an intolerable imposition on the rest of us?

No to any limit on magazines......this is why....

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.

-----

How Often Have Bystanders Intervened While a Mass Shooter Was Trying to Reload?

First, we consider the issue of how many times people have disrupted a mass shooting while the shooter was trying to load a detachable magazine into a semiautomatic gun.

Note that 16 it is irrelevant whether interveners have stopped a shooter while trying to reload some other type of gun, using other kinds of magazines, since we are addressing the potential significance of restrictions on the capacity of detachable magazines which are used only with semiautomatic firearms.

Thus, bystander intervention directed at shooters using other types of guns that take much longer to reload than a semiautomatic gun using detachable magazines could not provide any guidance as to the likelihood of bystander intervention when the shooter was using a semiautomatic gun equipped with detachable magazines that can be reloaded very quickly.

Prospective interveners would presumably be more likely to tackle a shooter who took a long time to reload than one who took only 2-4 seconds to do so.

Likewise, bystander interventions that occurred at a time when the shooter was not reloading (e.g., when he was struggling with a defective gun or magazine) are irrelevant, since that kind of intervention could occur regardless of what kinds of magazines or firearms the shooter was using.


It is the need to reload detachable magazines sooner and more often that differentiates shooters using smaller detachable magazines from those using larger ones.

For the period 1994-2013 inclusive, we identified three mass shooting incidents in which it was claimed that interveners disrupted the shooting by tackling the shooter while he was trying to reload.

In only one of the three cases, however, did interveners actually tackle the shooter while he may have been reloading a semiautomatic firearm.

In one of the incidents, the weapon in question was a shotgun that had to be reloaded by inserting one shotshell at a time into the weapon (Knoxville News Sentinel “Takedown of Alleged Shooter Recounted” July 29, 2008, regarding a shooting in Knoxville, TN on July 27, 2008), and so the incident is irrelevant to the effects of detachable LCMs.


In another incident, occurring in Springfield, Oregon on May 21, 1998, the shooter, Kip Kinkel, was using a semiautomatic gun, and he was tackled by bystanders, but not while he was reloading.

After exhausting the ammunition in one gun, the shooter started 17 firing another loaded gun, one of three firearms he had with him.

The first intervener was shot in the hand in the course of wresting this still-loaded gun away from the shooter (The (Portland) Oregonian, May 23, 1998).


The final case occurred in Tucson, AZ on January 8, 2011.

This is the shooting in which Jared Loughner attempted to assassinate Representative Gabrielle Giffords.

The shooter was using a semiautomatic firearm and was tackled by bystanders, purportedly while trying to reload a detachable magazine.

Even in this case, however, there were important uncertainties.

According to one news account, one bystander “grabbed a full magazine” that the shooter dropped, and two others helped subdue him (Associated Press, January 9, 2011).

It is not, however, clear whether this bystander intervention was facilitated because

(1) the shooter was reloading, or because

(2) the shooter stopping firing when his gun or magazine failed to function properly.

Eyewitness testimony, including that of the interveners, was inconsistent as to exactly why or how the intervention transpired in Giffords shooting.

One intervener insisted that he was sure the shooter had exhausted the ammunition in the first magazine (and thus was about to reload) because he saw the gun’s slide locked back – a condition he believed could only occur with this particular firearm after the last round is fired.

In fact, this can also happen when the guns jams, i.e. fails to chamber the next round (Salzgeber 2014; Morrill 2014).

Complicating matters further, the New York Times reported that the spring on the second magazine was broken, presumably rendering it incapable of functioning.

Their story’s headline and text characterized this mechanical failure as “perhaps the only fortunate event of the day” (New York Times “A Single, Terrifying Moment: Shots, Scuffle, Some Luck,” January 10, 2011, p. A1)

. If the New York Times account was accurate, the shooter would not have been able to continue shooting with that magazine even if no one had stopped him from loading it into his gun.

Detachable magazines of any size can malfunction, which would at least temporarily stop a prospective mass shooter from firing, and thereby provide an opportunity for bystanders to stop the shooter.
It is possible that the bystander intervention in the Tucson case could have occurred regardless of what size magazines the shooter possessed, since a shooter struggling with a defective small-capacity magazine would be just as vulnerable to disruption as one struggling with a defective large-capacity magazine. Thus, it remains unclear whether the shooter was reloading when the bystanders tackled him.
-----
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

-----

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]

Semi automatic weapons do NOT mimic full auto, never have never will. And the size of a magazine has nothing to do with anything.

Explain why there is no difference between reloading every five bullets and reloading every thirty.

This explains it.....please read it...

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.

-----

How Often Have Bystanders Intervened While a Mass Shooter Was Trying to Reload?

First, we consider the issue of how many times people have disrupted a mass shooting while the shooter was trying to load a detachable magazine into a semiautomatic gun.

Note that 16 it is irrelevant whether interveners have stopped a shooter while trying to reload some other type of gun, using other kinds of magazines, since we are addressing the potential significance of restrictions on the capacity of detachable magazines which are used only with semiautomatic firearms.

Thus, bystander intervention directed at shooters using other types of guns that take much longer to reload than a semiautomatic gun using detachable magazines could not provide any guidance as to the likelihood of bystander intervention when the shooter was using a semiautomatic gun equipped with detachable magazines that can be reloaded very quickly.

Prospective interveners would presumably be more likely to tackle a shooter who took a long time to reload than one who took only 2-4 seconds to do so.

Likewise, bystander interventions that occurred at a time when the shooter was not reloading (e.g., when he was struggling with a defective gun or magazine) are irrelevant, since that kind of intervention could occur regardless of what kinds of magazines or firearms the shooter was using.


It is the need to reload detachable magazines sooner and more often that differentiates shooters using smaller detachable magazines from those using larger ones.

For the period 1994-2013 inclusive, we identified three mass shooting incidents in which it was claimed that interveners disrupted the shooting by tackling the shooter while he was trying to reload.

In only one of the three cases, however, did interveners actually tackle the shooter while he may have been reloading a semiautomatic firearm.

In one of the incidents, the weapon in question was a shotgun that had to be reloaded by inserting one shotshell at a time into the weapon (Knoxville News Sentinel “Takedown of Alleged Shooter Recounted” July 29, 2008, regarding a shooting in Knoxville, TN on July 27, 2008), and so the incident is irrelevant to the effects of detachable LCMs.


In another incident, occurring in Springfield, Oregon on May 21, 1998, the shooter, Kip Kinkel, was using a semiautomatic gun, and he was tackled by bystanders, but not while he was reloading.

After exhausting the ammunition in one gun, the shooter started 17 firing another loaded gun, one of three firearms he had with him.

The first intervener was shot in the hand in the course of wresting this still-loaded gun away from the shooter (The (Portland) Oregonian, May 23, 1998).


The final case occurred in Tucson, AZ on January 8, 2011.

This is the shooting in which Jared Loughner attempted to assassinate Representative Gabrielle Giffords.

The shooter was using a semiautomatic firearm and was tackled by bystanders, purportedly while trying to reload a detachable magazine.

Even in this case, however, there were important uncertainties.

According to one news account, one bystander “grabbed a full magazine” that the shooter dropped, and two others helped subdue him (Associated Press, January 9, 2011).

It is not, however, clear whether this bystander intervention was facilitated because

(1) the shooter was reloading, or because

(2) the shooter stopping firing when his gun or magazine failed to function properly.

Eyewitness testimony, including that of the interveners, was inconsistent as to exactly why or how the intervention transpired in Giffords shooting.

One intervener insisted that he was sure the shooter had exhausted the ammunition in the first magazine (and thus was about to reload) because he saw the gun’s slide locked back – a condition he believed could only occur with this particular firearm after the last round is fired.

In fact, this can also happen when the guns jams, i.e. fails to chamber the next round (Salzgeber 2014; Morrill 2014).

Complicating matters further, the New York Times reported that the spring on the second magazine was broken, presumably rendering it incapable of functioning.

Their story’s headline and text characterized this mechanical failure as “perhaps the only fortunate event of the day” (New York Times “A Single, Terrifying Moment: Shots, Scuffle, Some Luck,” January 10, 2011, p. A1)

. If the New York Times account was accurate, the shooter would not have been able to continue shooting with that magazine even if no one had stopped him from loading it into his gun.

Detachable magazines of any size can malfunction, which would at least temporarily stop a prospective mass shooter from firing, and thereby provide an opportunity for bystanders to stop the shooter.
It is possible that the bystander intervention in the Tucson case could have occurred regardless of what size magazines the shooter possessed, since a shooter struggling with a defective small-capacity magazine would be just as vulnerable to disruption as one struggling with a defective large-capacity magazine. Thus, it remains unclear whether the shooter was reloading when the bystanders tackled him.
-----
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

-----

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]

Semi automatic weapons do NOT mimic full auto, never have never will. And the size of a magazine has nothing to do with anything.

Explain why there is no difference between reloading every five bullets and reloading every thirty.

The difference for mass shooters is nothing...as the link I provided showing actual research into magazine capacity shows...

For normal people? Law abiding people who may be fighting for their lives......

In a fight, you get an adrenaline dump.....it constricts your vision, makes small motor movements more difficult.....it also helps you ignore pain, gives you energy to fight or run.......

So....you are in a fight against one or more people ......you fire 5 rounds....now, since you have to change magazines, you are doing it at a disadvantage...the first....you are still fighting the criminals, second....it is harder for you to manage the magazine change because of your body mechanics in the fight.....

Also, are you injured in any way? What if you have lost the use of a hand or fingers.....changing the magazine after 5 rounds is more difficult.....

Mass shooters don't care, as all reports from survivors show, they are relaxed when they are shooting unarmed victims, they change magazines easily since they are under no pressure....

 

[2aguy]

There is a fundamental right to possess firearms pursuant to lawful self-defense.

That right is not absolute, however, and subject to regulations and restrictions by government, including the banning of AR platform rifles, which is consistent with the Second Amendment.

Banning ARs is not Constitutional and if you would actually read Heller you would see that.....the AR-15 is the most common rifle in the country......it is specifically protected by that status as per Heller......try to keep up.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
-------------
Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
-------
We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.

That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939.

We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Secon
-----

P.53

We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.25

The AR-15 is the most common rifle in the country with over 8 million in private hands...it is used for lawful purposes
----------

 

[miketx]

I am a firm believer that we have an inalienable right to defend our lives and liberty by any reasonable means, including the use of firearms. However, I do not believe this right extends to owning weapons and accessories designed to inflict mass casualties. That is why I oppose their manufacture, sale or possession by private individuals. (I also believe that possession of a gun during the commission of a felony should result in an additional 10 year jail sentence.)

The Second Amendment does not protect the private ownership of machine guns, so why should weapons and accessories that mimic them be protected?
I do not see this as a panacea for mass shootings, but I do think there should be some limits on their availability to dangerous and mentally unstable people. Would that constitute an intolerable imposition on the rest of us?

There's a bump stock holding up my pants even now.

Rate of fire on the dickman scale?

 

[miketx]

No ones cares about bump stocks the NRA has already been on record supporting their ban....

Yet I read in my paper this a.m. that the Maine legislature thinks it is too "complicated" an issue to consider with only three weeks left in the session.
Not even this will be considered.

Tell us all how that will keep a murderer from killing?