Yet another school shooting

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

They already tracked this in the research I showed...... the parkland shooter killed 17 with 10 round magazines..... and the Waffle House shooter killed 4 with a standard magazine.....

It is time in the gun free zone that matters, not magazine size...but thanks for letting us know that people like you won't be happy with a 10 round limit on magazines....

Mass public shooters kill fewer people each year than lawn mowers do...magazine limits only hurt law abiding citizens who need every bullet they can carry because when they are attacked, no one will be there to save them...they will be on their own, facing one or more armed attackers and they won't have backup.......

Stupid magazine limits only limit the number of bullets law abiding gun owners can have, mass shooters and criminals will not be effected.

You and your ridiculous stats that you keep posting in what you think has a correlation to these events, does no good in this debate, because it's making you look kind of desperate to get your opinions agreed to maybe ?

No, I'm all for stopping the ability of a shooter (until further technologies are implemented), from maximizing his kill rate before having to eject the clip and reload it with another clip.

No one is limiting the amount of ammo a legal gun owner is allowed to have, but only the rate that the bullets are allowed to be discharged from a semi-automatic weapon found in the hands of a deadly, crazy, and yet calculating seriously deranged person.

Why do you keep calling them "clips"? That alone says you are completely unfamiliar with such weapons.

The teacher that stopped the Indiana shooting was a former defensive end at SIU.

If we can’t have bad asses in the classroom, the indeed, arm the teachers.

A defensive end at SIU? Wow! I am impressed.

What is SIU, some overgrown high school?

While not disrespecting his bravery or actions, that tidbit of info just doesn't impress me because I went to an SEC school.

Did you play football there?

No, but I got my ass kicked enough by those who did play there!

 

[Pop23]

You and your ridiculous stats that you keep posting in what you think has a correlation to these events, does no good in this debate, because it's making you look kind of desperate to get your opinions agreed to maybe ?

No, I'm all for stopping the ability of a shooter (until further technologies are implemented), from maximizing his kill rate before having to eject the clip and reload it with another clip.

No one is limiting the amount of ammo a legal gun owner is allowed to have, but only the rate that the bullets are allowed to be discharged from a semi-automatic weapon found in the hands of a deadly, crazy, and yet calculating seriously deranged person.

Why do you keep calling them "clips"? That alone says you are completely unfamiliar with such weapons.

The teacher that stopped the Indiana shooting was a former defensive end at SIU.

If we can’t have bad asses in the classroom, the indeed, arm the teachers.

A defensive end at SIU? Wow! I am impressed.

What is SIU, some overgrown high school?

While not disrespecting his bravery or actions, that tidbit of info just doesn't impress me because I went to an SEC school.

Did you play football there?

No, but I got my ass kicked enough by those who did play there!

Apparently you got you’re ass kicked most of your life buttercup.

And ask Auburn about bad asses outside the vaunted SEC. Central Florida? (The true national champions)

Say, didn’t Auburn beat both Bama AND Georgia?

 

[Unkotare]

Odds are good anyone who played any NCAA football is as likely as not to be a badass.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Why do you keep calling them "clips"? That alone says you are completely unfamiliar with such weapons.

The teacher that stopped the Indiana shooting was a former defensive end at SIU.

If we can’t have bad asses in the classroom, the indeed, arm the teachers.

A defensive end at SIU? Wow! I am impressed.

What is SIU, some overgrown high school?

While not disrespecting his bravery or actions, that tidbit of info just doesn't impress me because I went to an SEC school.

Did you play football there?

No, but I got my ass kicked enough by those who did play there!

Apparently you got you’re ass kicked most of your life buttercup.

And ask Auburn about bad asses outside the vaunted SEC. Central Florida? (The true national champions)

Say, didn’t Auburn beat both Bama AND Georgia?

Yeah, now UCF had one badass player. He was incredible and Auburn had nothing to lose in that game. I am sorry they even played.

 

[2aguy]

A simple excersize is all that is needed right ?

1. Get two AR-15 rifles and two shooters.

2. Set up targets in the form of a mock school shooting or concert shooting.

3. Have one rifle with a full 30 round clip.

4. Have it engage all targets as fast as it can emptying the clip. Time the event.

5. The other rifle has a two round clip.

6. Have the shooter engauge all targets with the two round clip, and then with a change out of added clips from his pants, baggie, back pack etc. Time the event.

7. How long does it take to kill all targets between the two events, and make a note of the timed pauses in between the events or during the events.

They already tracked this in the research I showed...... the parkland shooter killed 17 with 10 round magazines..... and the Waffle House shooter killed 4 with a standard magazine.....

It is time in the gun free zone that matters, not magazine size...but thanks for letting us know that people like you won't be happy with a 10 round limit on magazines....

Mass public shooters kill fewer people each year than lawn mowers do...magazine limits only hurt law abiding citizens who need every bullet they can carry because when they are attacked, no one will be there to save them...they will be on their own, facing one or more armed attackers and they won't have backup.......

Stupid magazine limits only limit the number of bullets law abiding gun owners can have, mass shooters and criminals will not be effected.

You and your ridiculous stats that you keep posting in what you think has a correlation to these events, does no good in this debate, because it's making you look kind of desperate to get your opinions agreed to maybe ?

No, I'm all for stopping the ability of a shooter (until further technologies are implemented), from maximizing his kill rate before having to eject the clip and reload it with another clip.

No one is limiting the amount of ammo a legal gun owner is allowed to have, but only the rate that the bullets are allowed to be discharged from a semi-automatic weapon found in the hands of a deadly, crazy, and yet calculating seriously deranged person.

And that is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.......but thanks, you confirm that you anti gun nut jobs are not going to "allow" us 10 round magazines, that your goal is going to be to take whatever you can get when you can get it and not stop to you have banned all guns.....thanks for clarifying that.....and for you, again, since you didn't learn anything the first time you saw it...

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1525107116674926

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

-----


http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1525107116674926

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.

You and your lies are pathetic... No one is anti-gun here, and if anything I value children's lives in these events more than me sitting around saying anything except something that helps.

You were against banning bump stocks weren't you ?

Hey we have reached a level of depravity in this country that endangers us all when idiots get hold to these type weapons, and ignoring that fact is ridiculous.

Again I am not against any type of weapon being in the hands of good people (law abiding citizens), but I am definitely for keeping them from idiots or maniacs. Now we both know that that can't be done as is proven, so the only thing left is to either control the area or modify the weapons.

I garantee you that something will be done, so why not help instead of allowing the worst to come your way if the leftist get the power to control this stuff again ??

Yes...I am against banning bump stocks because the same wording in the bills they are passing can be used to outlaw any gun that had a factory trigger replaced with a new trigger, since that can allow the gun to "shoot faster."

And if you can't keep them from getting the gun, how are you going to keep them from getting a piece of metal and a spring?

They are not going to settle for anything but complete confiscation and if you think you can mollify them with 2 round magazines you really are a fool.

How many mass shootings are there? How many killed? Less than 75 people a year are killed in mass public shootings and that includes children.....and for that you want to keep normal, law abiding gun owners who use their 600 million guns legally and to save lives limited to 2 bullets to protect themselves and their families....that is insane and irrational.

If you want to keep kids safe? Get rid of democrat, gun free zones...so that their parents and teachers can carry their legal concealed or open carry guns with them onto school property.....

Buy and read this......it will explain through actual research that it is the time, not the magazine limit, that costs lives.....you have no idea what you are talking about, so please do some research.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01IPO3K5Y/?tag=ff0d01-20

 

[beagle9]

A simple excersize is all that is needed right ?

1. Get two AR-15 rifles and two shooters.

2. Set up targets in the form of a mock school shooting or concert shooting.

3. Have one rifle with a full 30 round clip.

4. Have it engage all targets as fast as it can emptying the clip. Time the event.

5. The other rifle has a two round clip.

6. Have the shooter engauge all targets with the two round clip, and then with a change out of added clips from his pants, baggie, back pack etc. Time the event.

7. How long does it take to kill all targets between the two events, and make a note of the timed pauses in between the events or during the events.

They already tracked this in the research I showed...... the parkland shooter killed 17 with 10 round magazines..... and the Waffle House shooter killed 4 with a standard magazine.....

It is time in the gun free zone that matters, not magazine size...but thanks for letting us know that people like you won't be happy with a 10 round limit on magazines....

Mass public shooters kill fewer people each year than lawn mowers do...magazine limits only hurt law abiding citizens who need every bullet they can carry because when they are attacked, no one will be there to save them...they will be on their own, facing one or more armed attackers and they won't have backup.......

Stupid magazine limits only limit the number of bullets law abiding gun owners can have, mass shooters and criminals will not be effected.

You and your ridiculous stats that you keep posting in what you think has a correlation to these events, does no good in this debate, because it's making you look kind of desperate to get your opinions agreed to maybe ?

No, I'm all for stopping the ability of a shooter (until further technologies are implemented), from maximizing his kill rate before having to eject the clip and reload it with another clip.

No one is limiting the amount of ammo a legal gun owner is allowed to have, but only the rate that the bullets are allowed to be discharged from a semi-automatic weapon found in the hands of a deadly, crazy, and yet calculating seriously deranged person.

Why do you keep calling them "clips"? That alone says you are completely unfamiliar with such weapons.

We've always called them clip's around here, so if you are more precise on your labels then that's great, but everyone doesn't strain at a knat like some people around here do.

 

[2aguy]

A simple excersize is all that is needed right ?

1. Get two AR-15 rifles and two shooters.

2. Set up targets in the form of a mock school shooting or concert shooting.

3. Have one rifle with a full 30 round clip.

4. Have it engage all targets as fast as it can emptying the clip. Time the event.

5. The other rifle has a two round clip.

6. Have the shooter engauge all targets with the two round clip, and then with a change out of added clips from his pants, baggie, back pack etc. Time the event.

7. How long does it take to kill all targets between the two events, and make a note of the timed pauses in between the events or during the events.

They already tracked this in the research I showed...... the parkland shooter killed 17 with 10 round magazines..... and the Waffle House shooter killed 4 with a standard magazine.....

It is time in the gun free zone that matters, not magazine size...but thanks for letting us know that people like you won't be happy with a 10 round limit on magazines....

Mass public shooters kill fewer people each year than lawn mowers do...magazine limits only hurt law abiding citizens who need every bullet they can carry because when they are attacked, no one will be there to save them...they will be on their own, facing one or more armed attackers and they won't have backup.......

Stupid magazine limits only limit the number of bullets law abiding gun owners can have, mass shooters and criminals will not be effected.

You and your ridiculous stats that you keep posting in what you think has a correlation to these events, does no good in this debate, because it's making you look kind of desperate to get your opinions agreed to maybe ?

No, I'm all for stopping the ability of a shooter (until further technologies are implemented), from maximizing his kill rate before having to eject the clip and reload it with another clip.

No one is limiting the amount of ammo a legal gun owner is allowed to have, but only the rate that the bullets are allowed to be discharged from a semi-automatic weapon found in the hands of a deadly, crazy, and yet calculating seriously deranged person.

Why do you keep calling them "clips"? That alone says you are completely unfamiliar with such weapons.

We've always called them clip's around here, so if you are more precise on your labels then that's great, but everyone doesn't strain at a knat like some people around here do.

The Cumbria shooter in Britain used a double barreled shot gun and a bolt action rifle...and killed 13 people.........time in the kill zone without being counter attacked is what causes the body count, not the magazine....

Cumbria shootings - Wikipedia

 

[beagle9]

A simple excersize is all that is needed right ?

1. Get two AR-15 rifles and two shooters.

2. Set up targets in the form of a mock school shooting or concert shooting.

3. Have one rifle with a full 30 round clip.

4. Have it engage all targets as fast as it can emptying the clip. Time the event.

5. The other rifle has a two round clip.

6. Have the shooter engauge all targets with the two round clip, and then with a change out of added clips from his pants, baggie, back pack etc. Time the event.

7. How long does it take to kill all targets between the two events, and make a note of the timed pauses in between the events or during the events.

They already tracked this in the research I showed...... the parkland shooter killed 17 with 10 round magazines..... and the Waffle House shooter killed 4 with a standard magazine.....

It is time in the gun free zone that matters, not magazine size...but thanks for letting us know that people like you won't be happy with a 10 round limit on magazines....

Mass public shooters kill fewer people each year than lawn mowers do...magazine limits only hurt law abiding citizens who need every bullet they can carry because when they are attacked, no one will be there to save them...they will be on their own, facing one or more armed attackers and they won't have backup.......

Stupid magazine limits only limit the number of bullets law abiding gun owners can have, mass shooters and criminals will not be effected.

You and your ridiculous stats that you keep posting in what you think has a correlation to these events, does no good in this debate, because it's making you look kind of desperate to get your opinions agreed to maybe ?

No, I'm all for stopping the ability of a shooter (until further technologies are implemented), from maximizing his kill rate before having to eject the clip and reload it with another clip.

No one is limiting the amount of ammo a legal gun owner is allowed to have, but only the rate that the bullets are allowed to be discharged from a semi-automatic weapon found in the hands of a deadly, crazy, and yet calculating seriously deranged person.

And that is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.......but thanks, you confirm that you anti gun nut jobs are not going to "allow" us 10 round magazines, that your goal is going to be to take whatever you can get when you can get it and not stop to you have banned all guns.....thanks for clarifying that.....and for you, again, since you didn't learn anything the first time you saw it...

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1525107116674926

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

-----


http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1525107116674926

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.

You and your lies are pathetic... No one is anti-gun here, and if anything I value children's lives in these events more than me sitting around saying anything except something that helps.

You were against banning bump stocks weren't you ?

Hey we have reached a level of depravity in this country that endangers us all when idiots get hold to these type weapons, and ignoring that fact is ridiculous.

Again I am not against any type of weapon being in the hands of good people (law abiding citizens), but I am definitely for keeping them from idiots or maniacs. Now we both know that that can't be done as is proven, so the only thing left is to either control the area or modify the weapons.

I garantee you that something will be done, so why not help instead of allowing the worst to come your way if the leftist get the power to control this stuff again ??

Yes...I am against banning bump stocks because the same wording in the bills they are passing can be used to outlaw any gun that had a factory trigger replaced with a new trigger, since that can allow the gun to "shoot faster."

And if you can't keep them from getting the gun, how are you going to keep them from getting a piece of metal and a spring?

They are not going to settle for anything but complete confiscation and if you think you can mollify them with 2 round magazines you really are a fool.

How many mass shootings are there? How many killed? Less than 75 people a year are killed in mass public shootings and that includes children.....and for that you want to keep normal, law abiding gun owners who use their 600 million guns legally and to save lives limited to 2 bullets to protect themselves and their families....that is insane and irrational.

If you want to keep kids safe? Get rid of democrat, gun free zones...so that their parents and teachers can carry their legal concealed or open carry guns with them onto school property.....

Buy and read this......it will explain through actual research that it is the time, not the magazine limit, that costs lives.....you have no idea what you are talking about, so please do some research.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01IPO3K5Y/?tag=ff0d01-20

. Well you can have your biased opinions about these things, and I will have mine. It doesn't matter how much posting you do here, it won't change my willingness to want more than kicking the can down the road until it happens again and again and again.

 

[beagle9]

A simple excersize is all that is needed right ?

1. Get two AR-15 rifles and two shooters.

2. Set up targets in the form of a mock school shooting or concert shooting.

3. Have one rifle with a full 30 round clip.

4. Have it engage all targets as fast as it can emptying the clip. Time the event.

5. The other rifle has a two round clip.

6. Have the shooter engauge all targets with the two round clip, and then with a change out of added clips from his pants, baggie, back pack etc. Time the event.

7. How long does it take to kill all targets between the two events, and make a note of the timed pauses in between the events or during the events.

They already tracked this in the research I showed...... the parkland shooter killed 17 with 10 round magazines..... and the Waffle House shooter killed 4 with a standard magazine.....

It is time in the gun free zone that matters, not magazine size...but thanks for letting us know that people like you won't be happy with a 10 round limit on magazines....

Mass public shooters kill fewer people each year than lawn mowers do...magazine limits only hurt law abiding citizens who need every bullet they can carry because when they are attacked, no one will be there to save them...they will be on their own, facing one or more armed attackers and they won't have backup.......

Stupid magazine limits only limit the number of bullets law abiding gun owners can have, mass shooters and criminals will not be effected.

You and your ridiculous stats that you keep posting in what you think has a correlation to these events, does no good in this debate, because it's making you look kind of desperate to get your opinions agreed to maybe ?

No, I'm all for stopping the ability of a shooter (until further technologies are implemented), from maximizing his kill rate before having to eject the clip and reload it with another clip.

No one is limiting the amount of ammo a legal gun owner is allowed to have, but only the rate that the bullets are allowed to be discharged from a semi-automatic weapon found in the hands of a deadly, crazy, and yet calculating seriously deranged person.

Why do you keep calling them "clips"? That alone says you are completely unfamiliar with such weapons.

We've always called them clip's around here, so if you are more precise on your labels then that's great, but everyone doesn't strain at a knat like some people around here do.

The Cumbria shooter in Britain used a double barreled shot gun and a bolt action rifle...and killed 13 people.........time in the kill zone without being counter attacked is what causes the body count, not the magazine....

Cumbria shootings - Wikipedia

Don't say that magazine's don't account for a time window found within the rate of kill ratio within the kill zone also, because they do.

 

[2aguy]

They already tracked this in the research I showed...... the parkland shooter killed 17 with 10 round magazines..... and the Waffle House shooter killed 4 with a standard magazine.....

It is time in the gun free zone that matters, not magazine size...but thanks for letting us know that people like you won't be happy with a 10 round limit on magazines....

Mass public shooters kill fewer people each year than lawn mowers do...magazine limits only hurt law abiding citizens who need every bullet they can carry because when they are attacked, no one will be there to save them...they will be on their own, facing one or more armed attackers and they won't have backup.......

Stupid magazine limits only limit the number of bullets law abiding gun owners can have, mass shooters and criminals will not be effected.

You and your ridiculous stats that you keep posting in what you think has a correlation to these events, does no good in this debate, because it's making you look kind of desperate to get your opinions agreed to maybe ?

No, I'm all for stopping the ability of a shooter (until further technologies are implemented), from maximizing his kill rate before having to eject the clip and reload it with another clip.

No one is limiting the amount of ammo a legal gun owner is allowed to have, but only the rate that the bullets are allowed to be discharged from a semi-automatic weapon found in the hands of a deadly, crazy, and yet calculating seriously deranged person.

And that is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.......but thanks, you confirm that you anti gun nut jobs are not going to "allow" us 10 round magazines, that your goal is going to be to take whatever you can get when you can get it and not stop to you have banned all guns.....thanks for clarifying that.....and for you, again, since you didn't learn anything the first time you saw it...

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1525107116674926

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

-----


http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1525107116674926

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.

You and your lies are pathetic... No one is anti-gun here, and if anything I value children's lives in these events more than me sitting around saying anything except something that helps.

You were against banning bump stocks weren't you ?

Hey we have reached a level of depravity in this country that endangers us all when idiots get hold to these type weapons, and ignoring that fact is ridiculous.

Again I am not against any type of weapon being in the hands of good people (law abiding citizens), but I am definitely for keeping them from idiots or maniacs. Now we both know that that can't be done as is proven, so the only thing left is to either control the area or modify the weapons.

I garantee you that something will be done, so why not help instead of allowing the worst to come your way if the leftist get the power to control this stuff again ??

Yes...I am against banning bump stocks because the same wording in the bills they are passing can be used to outlaw any gun that had a factory trigger replaced with a new trigger, since that can allow the gun to "shoot faster."

And if you can't keep them from getting the gun, how are you going to keep them from getting a piece of metal and a spring?

They are not going to settle for anything but complete confiscation and if you think you can mollify them with 2 round magazines you really are a fool.

How many mass shootings are there? How many killed? Less than 75 people a year are killed in mass public shootings and that includes children.....and for that you want to keep normal, law abiding gun owners who use their 600 million guns legally and to save lives limited to 2 bullets to protect themselves and their families....that is insane and irrational.

If you want to keep kids safe? Get rid of democrat, gun free zones...so that their parents and teachers can carry their legal concealed or open carry guns with them onto school property.....

Buy and read this......it will explain through actual research that it is the time, not the magazine limit, that costs lives.....you have no idea what you are talking about, so please do some research.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01IPO3K5Y/?tag=ff0d01-20

. Well you can have your biased opinions about these things, and I will have mine. It doesn't matter how much posting you do here, it won't change my willingness to want more than kicking the can down the road until it happens again and again and again.

Who wants to kick the can down the road? The only people who don't want to actually stop these shootings are left wing, anti gunners. The few things that will actually work.....armed guards, armed and trained staff and getting rid of gun free zones, are things they will not do...even as 2,500 police officers protect the 535 members of congress....and as every politician you see will immediately get body guards if they come under threat, and as anti gun activists who attend rallies do so with bodyguards armed to the teeth...with guns. But, they won't allow the parents of children to bring their legally owned and carried hand guns with them when they drop their kids off at school or when they pick them up.......creating the gun free zone that draws these shooters to attack them.......

The ones who need these shootings are the anti gun activists, they don't get any power when adults are shot, but they get massive emotional and political power when children are killed.....and so, they keep those alters to the gun control movement gun free...

 

[2aguy]

They already tracked this in the research I showed...... the parkland shooter killed 17 with 10 round magazines..... and the Waffle House shooter killed 4 with a standard magazine.....

It is time in the gun free zone that matters, not magazine size...but thanks for letting us know that people like you won't be happy with a 10 round limit on magazines....

Mass public shooters kill fewer people each year than lawn mowers do...magazine limits only hurt law abiding citizens who need every bullet they can carry because when they are attacked, no one will be there to save them...they will be on their own, facing one or more armed attackers and they won't have backup.......

Stupid magazine limits only limit the number of bullets law abiding gun owners can have, mass shooters and criminals will not be effected.

You and your ridiculous stats that you keep posting in what you think has a correlation to these events, does no good in this debate, because it's making you look kind of desperate to get your opinions agreed to maybe ?

No, I'm all for stopping the ability of a shooter (until further technologies are implemented), from maximizing his kill rate before having to eject the clip and reload it with another clip.

No one is limiting the amount of ammo a legal gun owner is allowed to have, but only the rate that the bullets are allowed to be discharged from a semi-automatic weapon found in the hands of a deadly, crazy, and yet calculating seriously deranged person.

Why do you keep calling them "clips"? That alone says you are completely unfamiliar with such weapons.

We've always called them clip's around here, so if you are more precise on your labels then that's great, but everyone doesn't strain at a knat like some people around here do.

The Cumbria shooter in Britain used a double barreled shot gun and a bolt action rifle...and killed 13 people.........time in the kill zone without being counter attacked is what causes the body count, not the magazine....

Cumbria shootings - Wikipedia

Don't say that magazine's don't account for a time window found within the rate of kill ratio within the kill zone also, because they do.

Actual research shows they don't........you can repeat that as much as you want, but research shows you don't know what you are talking about....

 

[2aguy]

They already tracked this in the research I showed...... the parkland shooter killed 17 with 10 round magazines..... and the Waffle House shooter killed 4 with a standard magazine.....

It is time in the gun free zone that matters, not magazine size...but thanks for letting us know that people like you won't be happy with a 10 round limit on magazines....

Mass public shooters kill fewer people each year than lawn mowers do...magazine limits only hurt law abiding citizens who need every bullet they can carry because when they are attacked, no one will be there to save them...they will be on their own, facing one or more armed attackers and they won't have backup.......

Stupid magazine limits only limit the number of bullets law abiding gun owners can have, mass shooters and criminals will not be effected.

You and your ridiculous stats that you keep posting in what you think has a correlation to these events, does no good in this debate, because it's making you look kind of desperate to get your opinions agreed to maybe ?

No, I'm all for stopping the ability of a shooter (until further technologies are implemented), from maximizing his kill rate before having to eject the clip and reload it with another clip.

No one is limiting the amount of ammo a legal gun owner is allowed to have, but only the rate that the bullets are allowed to be discharged from a semi-automatic weapon found in the hands of a deadly, crazy, and yet calculating seriously deranged person.

And that is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.......but thanks, you confirm that you anti gun nut jobs are not going to "allow" us 10 round magazines, that your goal is going to be to take whatever you can get when you can get it and not stop to you have banned all guns.....thanks for clarifying that.....and for you, again, since you didn't learn anything the first time you saw it...

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1525107116674926

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

-----


http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1525107116674926

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.

You and your lies are pathetic... No one is anti-gun here, and if anything I value children's lives in these events more than me sitting around saying anything except something that helps.

You were against banning bump stocks weren't you ?

Hey we have reached a level of depravity in this country that endangers us all when idiots get hold to these type weapons, and ignoring that fact is ridiculous.

Again I am not against any type of weapon being in the hands of good people (law abiding citizens), but I am definitely for keeping them from idiots or maniacs. Now we both know that that can't be done as is proven, so the only thing left is to either control the area or modify the weapons.

I garantee you that something will be done, so why not help instead of allowing the worst to come your way if the leftist get the power to control this stuff again ??

Yes...I am against banning bump stocks because the same wording in the bills they are passing can be used to outlaw any gun that had a factory trigger replaced with a new trigger, since that can allow the gun to "shoot faster."

And if you can't keep them from getting the gun, how are you going to keep them from getting a piece of metal and a spring?

They are not going to settle for anything but complete confiscation and if you think you can mollify them with 2 round magazines you really are a fool.

How many mass shootings are there? How many killed? Less than 75 people a year are killed in mass public shootings and that includes children.....and for that you want to keep normal, law abiding gun owners who use their 600 million guns legally and to save lives limited to 2 bullets to protect themselves and their families....that is insane and irrational.

If you want to keep kids safe? Get rid of democrat, gun free zones...so that their parents and teachers can carry their legal concealed or open carry guns with them onto school property.....

Buy and read this......it will explain through actual research that it is the time, not the magazine limit, that costs lives.....you have no idea what you are talking about, so please do some research.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01IPO3K5Y/?tag=ff0d01-20

. Well you can have your biased opinions about these things, and I will have mine. It doesn't matter how much posting you do here, it won't change my willingness to want more than kicking the can down the road until it happens again and again and again.

My opinions are based in fact, truth and reality....yours are made up with emotion, not rational thought.

 

[beagle9]

A simple excersize is all that is needed right ?

1. Get two AR-15 rifles and two shooters.

2. Set up targets in the form of a mock school shooting or concert shooting.

3. Have one rifle with a full 30 round clip.

4. Have it engage all targets as fast as it can emptying the clip. Time the event.

5. The other rifle has a two round clip.

6. Have the shooter engauge all targets with the two round clip, and then with a change out of added clips from his pants, baggie, back pack etc. Time the event.

7. How long does it take to kill all targets between the two events, and make a note of the timed pauses in between the events or during the events.

They already tracked this in the research I showed...... the parkland shooter killed 17 with 10 round magazines..... and the Waffle House shooter killed 4 with a standard magazine.....

It is time in the gun free zone that matters, not magazine size...but thanks for letting us know that people like you won't be happy with a 10 round limit on magazines....

Mass public shooters kill fewer people each year than lawn mowers do...magazine limits only hurt law abiding citizens who need every bullet they can carry because when they are attacked, no one will be there to save them...they will be on their own, facing one or more armed attackers and they won't have backup.......

Stupid magazine limits only limit the number of bullets law abiding gun owners can have, mass shooters and criminals will not be effected.

You and your ridiculous stats that you keep posting in what you think has a correlation to these events, does no good in this debate, because it's making you look kind of desperate to get your opinions agreed to maybe ?

No, I'm all for stopping the ability of a shooter (until further technologies are implemented), from maximizing his kill rate before having to eject the clip and reload it with another clip.

No one is limiting the amount of ammo a legal gun owner is allowed to have, but only the rate that the bullets are allowed to be discharged from a semi-automatic weapon found in the hands of a deadly, crazy, and yet calculating seriously deranged person.

Why do you keep calling them "clips"? That alone says you are completely unfamiliar with such weapons.

We've always called them clip's around here, so if you are more precise on your labels then that's great, but everyone doesn't strain at a knat like some people around here do.

The Cumbria shooter in Britain used a double barreled shot gun and a bolt action rifle...and killed 13 people.........time in the kill zone without being counter attacked is what causes the body count, not the magazine....

Cumbria shootings - Wikipedia

I agree that a shooter unabated in the kill zone for to long is a huge problem for sure, but you best talk to these dumb politicians and get them to address that one, because for some reason they don't want to do anything to curb that problem, and that's a shame.

It is why we have to go to the clip in the amount of rounds available to the shooter before he has to change that clip, because the politicians won't do their jobs or anyone else for that matter.

Now these are just ideas in light of the sorry situation, but even that won't get done. So it's just gonna be death and destruction I guess.

 

[beagle9]

You and your ridiculous stats that you keep posting in what you think has a correlation to these events, does no good in this debate, because it's making you look kind of desperate to get your opinions agreed to maybe ?

No, I'm all for stopping the ability of a shooter (until further technologies are implemented), from maximizing his kill rate before having to eject the clip and reload it with another clip.

No one is limiting the amount of ammo a legal gun owner is allowed to have, but only the rate that the bullets are allowed to be discharged from a semi-automatic weapon found in the hands of a deadly, crazy, and yet calculating seriously deranged person.

Why do you keep calling them "clips"? That alone says you are completely unfamiliar with such weapons.

We've always called them clip's around here, so if you are more precise on your labels then that's great, but everyone doesn't strain at a knat like some people around here do.

The Cumbria shooter in Britain used a double barreled shot gun and a bolt action rifle...and killed 13 people.........time in the kill zone without being counter attacked is what causes the body count, not the magazine....

Cumbria shootings - Wikipedia

Don't say that magazine's don't account for a time window found within the rate of kill ratio within the kill zone also, because they do.

Actual research shows they don't........you can repeat that as much as you want, but research shows you don't know what you are talking about....

Like I said challenge it with an excersize, and you will see the situation in real time. But it wouldn't matter, because you are in protect mode at all cost.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

A simple excersize is all that is needed right ?

1. Get two AR-15 rifles and two shooters.

2. Set up targets in the form of a mock school shooting or concert shooting.

3. Have one rifle with a full 30 round clip.

4. Have it engage all targets as fast as it can emptying the clip. Time the event.

5. The other rifle has a two round clip.

6. Have the shooter engauge all targets with the two round clip, and then with a change out of added clips from his pants, baggie, back pack etc. Time the event.

7. How long does it take to kill all targets between the two events, and make a note of the timed pauses in between the events or during the events.

They already tracked this in the research I showed...... the parkland shooter killed 17 with 10 round magazines..... and the Waffle House shooter killed 4 with a standard magazine.....

It is time in the gun free zone that matters, not magazine size...but thanks for letting us know that people like you won't be happy with a 10 round limit on magazines....

Mass public shooters kill fewer people each year than lawn mowers do...magazine limits only hurt law abiding citizens who need every bullet they can carry because when they are attacked, no one will be there to save them...they will be on their own, facing one or more armed attackers and they won't have backup.......

Stupid magazine limits only limit the number of bullets law abiding gun owners can have, mass shooters and criminals will not be effected.

You and your ridiculous stats that you keep posting in what you think has a correlation to these events, does no good in this debate, because it's making you look kind of desperate to get your opinions agreed to maybe ?

No, I'm all for stopping the ability of a shooter (until further technologies are implemented), from maximizing his kill rate before having to eject the clip and reload it with another clip.

No one is limiting the amount of ammo a legal gun owner is allowed to have, but only the rate that the bullets are allowed to be discharged from a semi-automatic weapon found in the hands of a deadly, crazy, and yet calculating seriously deranged person.

Why do you keep calling them "clips"? That alone says you are completely unfamiliar with such weapons.

We've always called them clip's around here, so if you are more precise on your labels then that's great, but everyone doesn't strain at a knat like some people around here do.

So you are claiming everybody else is wrong, so you will be also.

 

[2aguy]

They already tracked this in the research I showed...... the parkland shooter killed 17 with 10 round magazines..... and the Waffle House shooter killed 4 with a standard magazine.....

It is time in the gun free zone that matters, not magazine size...but thanks for letting us know that people like you won't be happy with a 10 round limit on magazines....

Mass public shooters kill fewer people each year than lawn mowers do...magazine limits only hurt law abiding citizens who need every bullet they can carry because when they are attacked, no one will be there to save them...they will be on their own, facing one or more armed attackers and they won't have backup.......

Stupid magazine limits only limit the number of bullets law abiding gun owners can have, mass shooters and criminals will not be effected.

You and your ridiculous stats that you keep posting in what you think has a correlation to these events, does no good in this debate, because it's making you look kind of desperate to get your opinions agreed to maybe ?

No, I'm all for stopping the ability of a shooter (until further technologies are implemented), from maximizing his kill rate before having to eject the clip and reload it with another clip.

No one is limiting the amount of ammo a legal gun owner is allowed to have, but only the rate that the bullets are allowed to be discharged from a semi-automatic weapon found in the hands of a deadly, crazy, and yet calculating seriously deranged person.

Why do you keep calling them "clips"? That alone says you are completely unfamiliar with such weapons.

We've always called them clip's around here, so if you are more precise on your labels then that's great, but everyone doesn't strain at a knat like some people around here do.

The Cumbria shooter in Britain used a double barreled shot gun and a bolt action rifle...and killed 13 people.........time in the kill zone without being counter attacked is what causes the body count, not the magazine....

Cumbria shootings - Wikipedia

I agree that a shooter unabated in the kill zone for to long is a huge problem for sure, but you best talk to these dumb politicians and get them to address that one, because for some reason they don't want to do anything to curb that problem, and that's a shame.

It is why we have to go to the clip in the amount of rounds available to the shooter before he has to change that clip, because the politicians won't do their jobs or anyone else for that matter.

Now these are just ideas in light of the sorry situation, but even that won't get done. So it's just gonna be death and destruction I guess.

No....you don't get it. Mass shooters will kill with whatever magazine is available......criminals will get whatever magazines they want...if you do a stupid magazine limit, only normal, law abiding people will comply, and they are the ones who actually need standard magazines...since your stupid 2 bullet limit will make every semi automatic weapon currently available unusable....since they all take more than 2 bullets.....it is a back door gun ban...

 

[beagle9]

You and your ridiculous stats that you keep posting in what you think has a correlation to these events, does no good in this debate, because it's making you look kind of desperate to get your opinions agreed to maybe ?

No, I'm all for stopping the ability of a shooter (until further technologies are implemented), from maximizing his kill rate before having to eject the clip and reload it with another clip.

No one is limiting the amount of ammo a legal gun owner is allowed to have, but only the rate that the bullets are allowed to be discharged from a semi-automatic weapon found in the hands of a deadly, crazy, and yet calculating seriously deranged person.

Why do you keep calling them "clips"? That alone says you are completely unfamiliar with such weapons.

We've always called them clip's around here, so if you are more precise on your labels then that's great, but everyone doesn't strain at a knat like some people around here do.

The Cumbria shooter in Britain used a double barreled shot gun and a bolt action rifle...and killed 13 people.........time in the kill zone without being counter attacked is what causes the body count, not the magazine....

Cumbria shootings - Wikipedia

I agree that a shooter unabated in the kill zone for to long is a huge problem for sure, but you best talk to these dumb politicians and get them to address that one, because for some reason they don't want to do anything to curb that problem, and that's a shame.

It is why we have to go to the clip in the amount of rounds available to the shooter before he has to change that clip, because the politicians won't do their jobs or anyone else for that matter.

Now these are just ideas in light of the sorry situation, but even that won't get done. So it's just gonna be death and destruction I guess.

No....you don't get it. Mass shooters will kill with whatever magazine is available......criminals will get whatever magazines they want...if you do a stupid magazine limit, only normal, law abiding people will comply, and they are the ones who actually need standard magazines...since your stupid 2 bullet limit will make every semi automatic weapon currently available unusable....since they all take more than 2 bullets.....it is a back door gun ban...

Good points about the legal gun owners complying but the lawless won't, but it's not a back door gun ban because guns wouldn't be banned just modified encase the lawless do get their hands on one.

How does it make a semi-automatic weapon unusable just for understanding purposes ?

Semi-automatic means to shoot a round everytime the trigger pulls once the gun is readied by being cocked and loaded right ?.... Matters not how many rounds are fired until the magazine empties, it's still a semi-automatic rifle or pistol until the clip is emptied.

The M1 Garand had 8 round magazines/clips, but the 30.0-6 bullet was highly lethal in those clips.

 

[FA_Q2]

A simple excersize is all that is needed right ?

1. Get two AR-15 rifles and two shooters.

2. Set up targets in the form of a mock school shooting or concert shooting.

3. Have one rifle with a full 30 round clip.

4. Have it engage all targets as fast as it can emptying the clip. Time the event.

5. The other rifle has a two round clip.

6. Have the shooter engauge all targets with the two round clip, and then with a change out of added clips from his pants, baggie, back pack etc. Time the event.

7. How long does it take to kill all targets between the two events, and make a note of the timed pauses in between the events or during the events.

Blasting away as fast as you can simply means you are not going to hit anything. That is the misnomer in gun control advocates and magazine size - slow, controlled bursts are how you take out a targets. A 2 round clip might actually accomplish slowing them down and also MASSIVELY impact the weapons defensive use as well. Essentially anything that impacts the fist by a tiny margin will impact the second massively.

So the schools become the wild west ?

There is no wild west. These so called shootouts where legal gun owners are spraying bullets all over the place simply do not exist. Not one time has anyone been able to point out an actual case of this. The only wild west shootouts are those that are had between gang members and that situation is not relevant to mass shootings.

No one said anything about LEGAL gun owners spraying bullets all over the place. Where did you come up with that one ?

You insinuated that schools would become the 'wild west' if teachers were legally armed. What else could you mean with a comment like that.

No someone said something about the students being armed in order to let them enjoy their second amendment rights, and then someone else said kids have no rights etc.

I said in response to the exchange that the schools would become the wild west.

Was your insinuation dishonest, otherwise within your supposed gotcha moment you thought you had on me ??

Dishonest my ass Beagle.

The quotation had NOTHING to do with arming kids. It is all right there for you to read. If you were referring to the comment about arming kids then maybe you should have actually quoted that statement rather than the one that DIRECTLY stated we need to arm TEACHERS.

Before you go around claiming I was dishonest, read your statements.

 

[beagle9]

A simple excersize is all that is needed right ?

1. Get two AR-15 rifles and two shooters.

2. Set up targets in the form of a mock school shooting or concert shooting.

3. Have one rifle with a full 30 round clip.

4. Have it engage all targets as fast as it can emptying the clip. Time the event.

5. The other rifle has a two round clip.

6. Have the shooter engauge all targets with the two round clip, and then with a change out of added clips from his pants, baggie, back pack etc. Time the event.

7. How long does it take to kill all targets between the two events, and make a note of the timed pauses in between the events or during the events.

Blasting away as fast as you can simply means you are not going to hit anything. That is the misnomer in gun control advocates and magazine size - slow, controlled bursts are how you take out a targets. A 2 round clip might actually accomplish slowing them down and also MASSIVELY impact the weapons defensive use as well. Essentially anything that impacts the fist by a tiny margin will impact the second massively.

So the schools become the wild west ?

There is no wild west. These so called shootouts where legal gun owners are spraying bullets all over the place simply do not exist. Not one time has anyone been able to point out an actual case of this. The only wild west shootouts are those that are had between gang members and that situation is not relevant to mass shootings.

No one said anything about LEGAL gun owners spraying bullets all over the place. Where did you come up with that one ?

You insinuated that schools would become the 'wild west' if teachers were legally armed. What else could you mean with a comment like that.

No someone said something about the students being armed in order to let them enjoy their second amendment rights, and then someone else said kids have no rights etc.

I said in response to the exchange that the schools would become the wild west.

Was your insinuation dishonest, otherwise within your supposed gotcha moment you thought you had on me ??

Dishonest my ass Beagle.

The quotation had NOTHING to do with arming kids. It is all right there for you to read. If you were referring to the comment about arming kids then maybe you should have actually quoted that statement rather than the one that DIRECTLY stated we need to arm TEACHERS.

Before you go around claiming I was dishonest, read your statements.

Didn't I say that "someone said something about arming students", and I was referring to that when I said the schools would become the wild west ?? Never said you were dishonest because I wasn't reffering to our exchange at all... Go back and read REAL SLOW, then get back to me.. Good Grief..