New research...actual research shows magazine limits will not save lives

[2aguy]

Yes...actual research on the topic shows that magazine limits do not save lives in mass shooting events....

KLECK: Magazine Size Limits Have No Effect On Mass Shootings - Bearing Arms - Gary Kleck, High capacity magazines



Criminologist Gary Kleck is a legend in his field, and a thorn in the side of gun control supporters for his rigid insistence on listening to what the data tells us, instead of attempting to twist the data to suit his political agenda. His latest study looks like it will crush the gun control conceit that magazine size limits have anything at all to do with casualty counts.

Magazine size limits are irrelevant in mass shootings.

Kleck identified and examined 88 mass shooting incidents in which more than six people were killed or wounded for the 20 year period from 1994 through 2013. He looked at incidents with more than six victims because six or fewer people could be shot with a traditional six-shot revolver with no large-capacity magazine needed. So he wanted to look at those events in which possession of large-capacity magazines would be most relevant.

Even with this restrictive definition of a mass shooting, Kleck found that large capacity magazines – defined as holding over 10 rounds – were used in only 21 of the 88 incidents (24%). So, in 76% of the incidents, a large-capacity magazine ban would have made no difference in any event.

Kleck then goes on to analyze further the 21 incidents in which a large-capacity magazine was used. In every case, the shooters carried either multiple guns or multiple magazines. Therefore, even without a large-capacity magazine, the shooters could easily switch guns or magazines.

Kleck also marshals evidence to show that the rate of fire of most mass shooters is so slow that having to change guns or magazines more frequently would not diminish their casualty counts.

 

[2aguy]

Here is more on the upcoming paper....


Magazine size limits are irrelevant in mass shootings.



For this paper, Kleck identified and examined 88 mass shooting incidents in which more than six people were killed or wounded for the 20 year period from 1994 through 2013. He looked at incidents with more than six victims because six or fewer people could be shot with a traditional six-shot revolver with no large-capacity magazine needed. So he wanted to look at those events in which possession of large-capacity magazines would be most relevant.

Even with this restrictive definition of a mass shooting, Kleck found that large capacity magazines – defined as holding over 10 rounds – were used in only 21 of the 88 incidents (24%). So, in 76% of the incidents, a large-capacity magazine ban would have made no difference in any event.

Kleck then goes on to analyze further the 21 incidents in which a large-capacity magazine was used. In every case, the shooters carried either multiple guns or multiple magazines. Therefore, even without a large-capacity magazine, the shooters could easily switch guns or magazines.

Kleck also marshals evidence to show that the rate of fire of most mass shooters is so slow that having to change guns or magazines more frequently would not diminish their casualty counts.

There is much more detail in this 60+ page paper than I can recount here. I expect that Kleck will be publishing it soon for all to see.

For now, the bottom line is this: large-capacity magazines do not lead to higher casualty counts in mass shootings. It is the desire of the perpetrator to shoot a lot of people leads to higher casualty counts.

The choice of a large-capacity magazine may reflect that desire, but it does not seem to facilitate its realization. Lacking large-capacity magazines, the shooters could realize their evil intentions with other widely available means.