CDZ 1 killed, 6 injured, could the Hospital shooter have done this with another gun?

[2aguy]

So.....the left wing, anti gunners are in a tizzy because the hospital shooter used an AR-15.....with 10 round magazines, to shoot up a hospital....killing 1 and injuring 6.....a place he had worked at for maybe a year before he resigned due to sexual harrasment allegations, and hadn't been there for 2 years before the shooting.......and he told them he was going to do it....

The discussion is this...could he have done the same thing with another type of gun.....

For example.....a revolver....6 shots, .357....a much bigger bullet

The British banned guns in 1996......in 2010 24 years after the ban and confiscation, a guy in Cumbria, Britain, used a double barreled shotgun and a .22 caliger bolt action rifle to kill 12 people.....

So....could the hospital shooter have killed more if he had used a different weapon?

 

[Correll]

My fear is that someday, the anti-guns manage to make self defense guns rare enough that criminals are actually driven to use hunting guns.


The death toll would certainly rise. SHotguns? Large rifles? Much more deadly than an "Assault rifle".

 

[jwoodie]

Although I think that the "assault" weapon distinction is idiotic, extra-large capacity magazines seem to have no legitimate civilian purpose. Thoughts?

 

[2aguy]

My fear is that someday, the anti-guns manage to make self defense guns rare enough that criminals are actually driven to use hunting guns.


The death toll would certainly rise. SHotguns? Large rifles? Much more deadly than an "Assault rifle".

A rifle with dear slugs......

a pistiol.....44 caliber.... .357

A rental truck driven through the parking lot......

 

[Correll]

Although I think that the "assault" weapon distinction is idiotic, extra-large capacity magazines seem to have no legitimate civilian purpose. Thoughts?

Unless you are caught in an urban riot zone. Then they will have a very useful purpose, ie defending yourself from a mob.

 

[2aguy]

Although I think that the "assault" weapon distinction is idiotic, extra-large capacity magazines seem to have no legitimate civilian purpose. Thoughts?

Yes...they actually do. The "large capacity magazine" title is a bait and switch. When they first used terms like that, they said it was for 100 round drum magazines for rifles.......and they used the same argument you just made...who needs a 100 round drum magazine....for a rifle.....

Then, when the uninformed said..."Yeah...who needs that?" And the uniformed believed they meant ...for rifles.......... The anti gunners switched the the item to......the regular magazines found in most, semi auto pistols......19, 15 round magazines common in all types of pistols.....so the uninformed then voted to ban these magazines, thinking they just meant 100 round drum magazines for rifles....and ended up empowering the anti gunners to ban magazines that are standard issue for pistols........

it was a bait and switch tactic.....and just that dishonesty shows that their intentions were a lie...

also....

In a self defense situation, many times the victim will likely be injured in some way...when you are injured, and even when you are not....you get hit with a spike of adrenaline to deal with the situation....and the adrenaline affects your ability to do small motor movement...like changing a magazine.

So....a standard capacity magazine means you don't have to change your magazine as often if you really have to take on a determined attacker or attackers.....that could mean your life or the life of your family.

A criminal...if they run out of ammo...they can run away...you can't.....

Have you read the ruling by the Judge in the Magazine ban in San Diego...he goes through this exactly, step by step....I posted a thread on it, and he actually addresses your question far better than I can.....

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...rra_Order-Granting-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf

b. Constitutionally suspect under the simple test

Under the simple Heller test, § 32310 (c) & (d) are highly suspect.


Magazines holding more than 10 rounds are useful for self-defense by law-abiding citizens.

And they are common.

Lawful in at least 43 states and under federal law, these magazines number in the millions.Cf. Hollis v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 436, 449 (5th Cir. 2016) (defining the term “common” by applying the Supreme Court test in Caetano of 200,000 stun guns owned and legal in 45 states being “common”); see also NYSR&PA v. Cuomo, 804 F.3d 242, 255-57 (2nd Cir. 2015) (noting large-capacity magazines are “in common use” as the term is used in Heller based on even the most conservative estimates).

To the extent they may be now uncommon within California, it would only be the result of the State long criminalizing the buying, selling, importing, and manufacturing of these magazines.

-------

Again, a 33-round magazine would seem unusual. But a Glock 19 with its standard magazine would seem to be the quintessential self-defense weapon

------

Tragically, when 30-round magazines are banned, attackers will use 15 or 17- round magazines. If magazines holding more than 10 rounds are banned they will use multiple 10-round magazines. If all semi-automatic weapons are banned they will use

40 17cv1017-BEN Case 3:17-cv-01017-BEN-JLB Document 28 Filed 06/29/17 PageID.4156 Page 40 of 66 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


shotguns and revolvers. All of these scenarios already occur. Because revolvers and handguns are the quintessential home defense weapon protected by the Second Amendment and specifically approved in Heller, and because the average defensive gun use involves firing 2.2 rounds (according to the State’s experts), states could rationalize a ban on possession of rounds in excess of three per weapon.

Criminals intent on 13 violence would then equip themselves with multiple weapons.

The State could then rationalize a one-weapon-per-individual law. Since “merely” brandishing a firearm is usually effective as a defense to criminal attack (according to the State’s experts), it could be argued that a one-revolver-with-one-round-per-individual ban is a reasonable experiment in state police power as a means to protect citizens and law enforcement officers from gun violence

 

[2aguy]

Although I think that the "assault" weapon distinction is idiotic, extra-large capacity magazines seem to have no legitimate civilian purpose. Thoughts?

Here is an example the Judge used to show that the anti-gun expert was incorrect....

The professor did not need to speculate about some unlikely, hypothetical, future case.

The scenario has actually played out in the past. And it turns out that his speculation was a bit off. Among the Attorney General’s evidentiary presentation is a news account of a law-abiding woman and her husband who late one night needed to fire a gun in self-defense against armed robbers. Oppo. Gordon Declaration, Exh. 41.


As two armed men broke in, Susan Gonzalez was shot in the chest. She made it back to their bedroom and found her husband’s .22 pistol. Wasting the first rounds on warning shots, she then emptied the single pistol at one attacker.

Unfortunately, out of ammunition, she was shot again by the other armed attacker. She was not able to re-load or use a second gun. Both her and her husband were shot twice.

Forty-two bullets were fired. Id., Exh. 41 (Jacksonville Times-Union, July 18, 2000) (“Suddenly the door flew 46 17cv1017-BEN Case 3:17-cv-01017-BEN-JLB Document 28 Filed 06/29/17 PageID.4162 Page 46 of 66 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 open and two masked men burst into the doublewide wearing gloves and camouflage jackets and waving guns . . . . She was shot in the chest . . . dialed 911 . . . then grabbed her husband’s Ruger .22 from a drawer . . . fired several shots over the robbers’ heads to scare them off . . . saw one of the gunmen . . . crouched near her refrigerator. . . sneaked up behind him and emptied the Ruger, hitting him twice with her seven or eight remaining bullets.

The other gunman . . . then shot Susan Gonzalez, now out of ammunition.



[The gunman] fled from the house but returned . . . [.] He put a gun to Susan Gonzalez’s head and demanded the keys to the couple’s truck.”); cf. Oppo. Gordon Declaration, Exh. 102 at 388 (Washington Post, Jan. 30, 2013, Transcript of Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Gun Violence), Senator L. Graham remarks: “I do not know if 10 versus 19 is common or uncommon. I do know that 10 versus 19 in the hands of the wrong person is a complete disaster.

I do know that six bullets in that hands [sic] of a woman trying to defend her children may not be enough. . . [.]

One bullet in the hands of the wrong person we should all try to prevent.

But when you start telling me that I am unreasonable for wanting that woman to have more than six bullets, or to have and AR-15 if people [are] roaming around my neighborhood, I reject the concept.”). The Attorney General’s own evidence casts doubt on the reliability of his experts’ opinions.

 

[Mudda]

So.....the left wing, anti gunners are in a tizzy because the hospital shooter used an AR-15.....with 10 round magazines, to shoot up a hospital....killing 1 and injuring 6.....a place he had worked at for maybe a year before he resigned due to sexual harrasment allegations, and hadn't been there for 2 years before the shooting.......and he told them he was going to do it....

The discussion is this...could he have done the same thing with another type of gun.....

For example.....a revolver....6 shots, .357....a much bigger bullet

The British banned guns in 1996......in 2010 24 years after the ban and confiscation, a guy in Cumbria, Britain, used a double barreled shotgun and a .22 caliger bolt action rifle to kill 12 people.....

So....could the hospital shooter have killed more if he had used a different weapon?

Gee, ANOTHER thread about how you like nice, long, hard guns. What a surprise.

 

[2aguy]

So.....the left wing, anti gunners are in a tizzy because the hospital shooter used an AR-15.....with 10 round magazines, to shoot up a hospital....killing 1 and injuring 6.....a place he had worked at for maybe a year before he resigned due to sexual harrasment allegations, and hadn't been there for 2 years before the shooting.......and he told them he was going to do it....

The discussion is this...could he have done the same thing with another type of gun.....

For example.....a revolver....6 shots, .357....a much bigger bullet

The British banned guns in 1996......in 2010 24 years after the ban and confiscation, a guy in Cumbria, Britain, used a double barreled shotgun and a .22 caliger bolt action rifle to kill 12 people.....

So....could the hospital shooter have killed more if he had used a different weapon?

Gee, ANOTHER thread about how you like nice, long, hard guns. What a surprise.

Actually, it is only a surprise to you.....I have made it quite obvious that I post about the 2nd Amendment, the one amendment that is under direct assault by left wingers, and has the least popular support of the general American people....

And of course, you imply a sexual attitude about guns...which is typical of anti-gunners. I think it has to do with anti gunners having deep seated sexual issues......they see a gun and they become sexually aroused....they feel guilty, and awkward about this feeling of sexual arousal, but they don't know how to stop it.....there only solution is to demand that all guns be banned....and to "project" their confused sexual attraction for guns onto other people......

Psychological projection - Wikipedia

Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.[1]

Mudda....I suggest that you seek professional help.....your sexual attraction to firearms is not normal, and it is not healthy....please get help before you hurt yourself or others...

 

[Mudda]

So.....the left wing, anti gunners are in a tizzy because the hospital shooter used an AR-15.....with 10 round magazines, to shoot up a hospital....killing 1 and injuring 6.....a place he had worked at for maybe a year before he resigned due to sexual harrasment allegations, and hadn't been there for 2 years before the shooting.......and he told them he was going to do it....

The discussion is this...could he have done the same thing with another type of gun.....

For example.....a revolver....6 shots, .357....a much bigger bullet

The British banned guns in 1996......in 2010 24 years after the ban and confiscation, a guy in Cumbria, Britain, used a double barreled shotgun and a .22 caliger bolt action rifle to kill 12 people.....

So....could the hospital shooter have killed more if he had used a different weapon?

Gee, ANOTHER thread about how you like nice, long, hard guns. What a surprise.

Actually, it is only a surprise to you.....I have made it quite obvious that I post about the 2nd Amendment, the one amendment that is under direct assault by left wingers, and has the least popular support of the general American people....

And of course, you imply a sexual attitude about guns...which is typical of anti-gunners. I think it has to do with anti gunners having deep seated sexual issues......they see a gun and they become sexually aroused....they feel guilty, and awkward about this feeling of sexual arousal, but they don't know how to stop it.....there only solution is to demand that all guns be banned....and to "project" their confused sexual attraction for guns onto other people......

Psychological projection - Wikipedia

Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.[1]

Mudda....I suggest that you seek professional help.....your sexual attraction to firearms is not normal, and it is not healthy....please get help before you hurt yourself or others...

The 2nd amendment doesn't protect an unfettered access to any weapon you want. So the government has already screwed you.

 

[jwoodie]

Although I think that the "assault" weapon distinction is idiotic, extra-large capacity magazines seem to have no legitimate civilian purpose. Thoughts?

Yes...they actually do. The "large capacity magazine" title is a bait and switch. When they first used terms like that, they said it was for 100 round drum magazines for rifles.......and they used the same argument you just made...who needs a 100 round drum magazine....for a rifle.....

Then, when the uninformed said..."Yeah...who needs that?" And the uniformed believed they meant ...for rifles.......... The anti gunners switched the the item to......the regular magazines found in most, semi auto pistols......19, 15 round magazines common in all types of pistols.....so the uninformed then voted to ban these magazines, thinking they just meant 100 round drum magazines for rifles....and ended up empowering the anti gunners to ban magazines that are standard issue for pistols........

it was a bait and switch tactic.....and just that dishonesty shows that their intentions were a lie...

also....

In a self defense situation, many times the victim will likely be injured in some way...when you are injured, and even when you are not....you get hit with a spike of adrenaline to deal with the situation....and the adrenaline affects your ability to do small motor movement...like changing a magazine.

So....a standard capacity magazine means you don't have to change your magazine as often if you really have to take on a determined attacker or attackers.....that could mean your life or the life of your family.

A criminal...if they run out of ammo...they can run away...you can't.....

Have you read the ruling by the Judge in the Magazine ban in San Diego...he goes through this exactly, step by step....I posted a thread on it, and he actually addresses your question far better than I can.....

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...rra_Order-Granting-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf

b. Constitutionally suspect under the simple test

Under the simple Heller test, § 32310 (c) & (d) are highly suspect.


Magazines holding more than 10 rounds are useful for self-defense by law-abiding citizens.

And they are common.

Lawful in at least 43 states and under federal law, these magazines number in the millions.Cf. Hollis v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 436, 449 (5th Cir. 2016) (defining the term “common” by applying the Supreme Court test in Caetano of 200,000 stun guns owned and legal in 45 states being “common”); see also NYSR&PA v. Cuomo, 804 F.3d 242, 255-57 (2nd Cir. 2015) (noting large-capacity magazines are “in common use” as the term is used in Heller based on even the most conservative estimates).

To the extent they may be now uncommon within California, it would only be the result of the State long criminalizing the buying, selling, importing, and manufacturing of these magazines.

-------

Again, a 33-round magazine would seem unusual. But a Glock 19 with its standard magazine would seem to be the quintessential self-defense weapon

------

Tragically, when 30-round magazines are banned, attackers will use 15 or 17- round magazines. If magazines holding more than 10 rounds are banned they will use multiple 10-round magazines. If all semi-automatic weapons are banned they will use

40 17cv1017-BEN Case 3:17-cv-01017-BEN-JLB Document 28 Filed 06/29/17 PageID.4156 Page 40 of 66 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


shotguns and revolvers. All of these scenarios already occur. Because revolvers and handguns are the quintessential home defense weapon protected by the Second Amendment and specifically approved in Heller, and because the average defensive gun use involves firing 2.2 rounds (according to the State’s experts), states could rationalize a ban on possession of rounds in excess of three per weapon.

Criminals intent on 13 violence would then equip themselves with multiple weapons.

The State could then rationalize a one-weapon-per-individual law. Since “merely” brandishing a firearm is usually effective as a defense to criminal attack (according to the State’s experts), it could be argued that a one-revolver-with-one-round-per-individual ban is a reasonable experiment in state police power as a means to protect citizens and law enforcement officers from gun violence

I agree that the Left uses bait-and-switch tactics, but that doesn't mean that the rest of us should abandon legitimate debate. A 30 round magazine seems to have no legitimate purpose other that to inflict casualties on a large number of people. Stopping to reload may give some victims a chance to escape.

 

[2aguy]

So.....the left wing, anti gunners are in a tizzy because the hospital shooter used an AR-15.....with 10 round magazines, to shoot up a hospital....killing 1 and injuring 6.....a place he had worked at for maybe a year before he resigned due to sexual harrasment allegations, and hadn't been there for 2 years before the shooting.......and he told them he was going to do it....

The discussion is this...could he have done the same thing with another type of gun.....

For example.....a revolver....6 shots, .357....a much bigger bullet

The British banned guns in 1996......in 2010 24 years after the ban and confiscation, a guy in Cumbria, Britain, used a double barreled shotgun and a .22 caliger bolt action rifle to kill 12 people.....

So....could the hospital shooter have killed more if he had used a different weapon?

Gee, ANOTHER thread about how you like nice, long, hard guns. What a surprise.

Actually, it is only a surprise to you.....I have made it quite obvious that I post about the 2nd Amendment, the one amendment that is under direct assault by left wingers, and has the least popular support of the general American people....

And of course, you imply a sexual attitude about guns...which is typical of anti-gunners. I think it has to do with anti gunners having deep seated sexual issues......they see a gun and they become sexually aroused....they feel guilty, and awkward about this feeling of sexual arousal, but they don't know how to stop it.....there only solution is to demand that all guns be banned....and to "project" their confused sexual attraction for guns onto other people......

Psychological projection - Wikipedia

Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.[1]

Mudda....I suggest that you seek professional help.....your sexual attraction to firearms is not normal, and it is not healthy....please get help before you hurt yourself or others...

The 2nd amendment doesn't protect an unfettered access to any weapon you want. So the government has already screwed you.

No one said it did...but you guys keep saying that as if it means you can ban every single gun you want,and a long as we have a single shot .22, you think the 2nd Amendment is still being followed......

AR-15s are protected......just to let you know...

 

[2aguy]

Although I think that the "assault" weapon distinction is idiotic, extra-large capacity magazines seem to have no legitimate civilian purpose. Thoughts?

Yes...they actually do. The "large capacity magazine" title is a bait and switch. When they first used terms like that, they said it was for 100 round drum magazines for rifles.......and they used the same argument you just made...who needs a 100 round drum magazine....for a rifle.....

Then, when the uninformed said..."Yeah...who needs that?" And the uniformed believed they meant ...for rifles.......... The anti gunners switched the the item to......the regular magazines found in most, semi auto pistols......19, 15 round magazines common in all types of pistols.....so the uninformed then voted to ban these magazines, thinking they just meant 100 round drum magazines for rifles....and ended up empowering the anti gunners to ban magazines that are standard issue for pistols........

it was a bait and switch tactic.....and just that dishonesty shows that their intentions were a lie...

also....

In a self defense situation, many times the victim will likely be injured in some way...when you are injured, and even when you are not....you get hit with a spike of adrenaline to deal with the situation....and the adrenaline affects your ability to do small motor movement...like changing a magazine.

So....a standard capacity magazine means you don't have to change your magazine as often if you really have to take on a determined attacker or attackers.....that could mean your life or the life of your family.

A criminal...if they run out of ammo...they can run away...you can't.....

Have you read the ruling by the Judge in the Magazine ban in San Diego...he goes through this exactly, step by step....I posted a thread on it, and he actually addresses your question far better than I can.....

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...rra_Order-Granting-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf

b. Constitutionally suspect under the simple test

Under the simple Heller test, § 32310 (c) & (d) are highly suspect.


Magazines holding more than 10 rounds are useful for self-defense by law-abiding citizens.

And they are common.

Lawful in at least 43 states and under federal law, these magazines number in the millions.Cf. Hollis v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 436, 449 (5th Cir. 2016) (defining the term “common” by applying the Supreme Court test in Caetano of 200,000 stun guns owned and legal in 45 states being “common”); see also NYSR&PA v. Cuomo, 804 F.3d 242, 255-57 (2nd Cir. 2015) (noting large-capacity magazines are “in common use” as the term is used in Heller based on even the most conservative estimates).

To the extent they may be now uncommon within California, it would only be the result of the State long criminalizing the buying, selling, importing, and manufacturing of these magazines.

-------

Again, a 33-round magazine would seem unusual. But a Glock 19 with its standard magazine would seem to be the quintessential self-defense weapon

------

Tragically, when 30-round magazines are banned, attackers will use 15 or 17- round magazines. If magazines holding more than 10 rounds are banned they will use multiple 10-round magazines. If all semi-automatic weapons are banned they will use

40 17cv1017-BEN Case 3:17-cv-01017-BEN-JLB Document 28 Filed 06/29/17 PageID.4156 Page 40 of 66 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


shotguns and revolvers. All of these scenarios already occur. Because revolvers and handguns are the quintessential home defense weapon protected by the Second Amendment and specifically approved in Heller, and because the average defensive gun use involves firing 2.2 rounds (according to the State’s experts), states could rationalize a ban on possession of rounds in excess of three per weapon.

Criminals intent on 13 violence would then equip themselves with multiple weapons.

The State could then rationalize a one-weapon-per-individual law. Since “merely” brandishing a firearm is usually effective as a defense to criminal attack (according to the State’s experts), it could be argued that a one-revolver-with-one-round-per-individual ban is a reasonable experiment in state police power as a means to protect citizens and law enforcement officers from gun violence

I agree that the Left uses bait-and-switch tactics, but that doesn't mean that the rest of us should abandon legitimate debate. A 30 round magazine seems to have no legitimate purpose other that to inflict casualties on a large number of people. Stopping to reload may give some victims a chance to escape.

A 30 round magazine in the hands of a law abiding citizen can help them survive an attack. Why should a law abiding person have to count bullets in the middle of an attack, when the criminal can simply run away when their own gun runs out....and of course....a mass shooters doesn't need a 30 round magazine to murder people...the guy in Cumbria, britain, in 2010 murdered 12 people with a double barreled shotgun and a bolt action .22 rifle....

Criminals will get those magazines if they want or need them...banning them is pointless.. and endangers the law abiding...

The saving lives meme, while the guy switches magazines.....is not even remotely true....actual research on this has been done...

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.

----



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.

 

[12icer]

All of the BS pumped out by the "BAN" idiots is ridiculous. In fact Crazy Joe's shotgun is the best way to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time, That is why so many IN THE KNOW grunts carried sawed off PUMP shotgun in The nasty, All you would have to do to kill an entire room of people no matter how many were there would be come in with a sawed of pump loaded with alternating #4 and #2 buckshot, have a few PUNKIN BALLS, and some #6 on the side put on a couple of bandoliers with 100 rounds 50 #4 50 #2 And go hunting. As you shoot a round and eject you pull a round out of the bandolier and replace the one you shot via the bottom or side loading port. If you use and auto or a double barrel it is just the same shoot kill a few, load shoot kill a few more. Body count would be much higher than in a rifle or even full auto situation. Of course you stupid gun hating liberals will all say he cant do that because you don't know a damn thing about guns self protection or most anything else, But anyone who KNOWS guns, KNOWS it is 100% true. AND even with a three round plugged mag your mag is always loaded till you expend all of the rounds IT's Much better than having to change a mag and aim each shot.

 

[jwoodie]

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.

Your zealotry is undermining your arguments:

In a self defense situation, many times the victim will likely be injured in some way...when you are injured, and even when you are not....you get hit with a spike of adrenaline to deal with the situation....and the adrenaline affects your ability to do small motor movement...like changing a magazine.

 

[Mudda]

So.....the left wing, anti gunners are in a tizzy because the hospital shooter used an AR-15.....with 10 round magazines, to shoot up a hospital....killing 1 and injuring 6.....a place he had worked at for maybe a year before he resigned due to sexual harrasment allegations, and hadn't been there for 2 years before the shooting.......and he told them he was going to do it....

The discussion is this...could he have done the same thing with another type of gun.....

For example.....a revolver....6 shots, .357....a much bigger bullet

The British banned guns in 1996......in 2010 24 years after the ban and confiscation, a guy in Cumbria, Britain, used a double barreled shotgun and a .22 caliger bolt action rifle to kill 12 people.....

So....could the hospital shooter have killed more if he had used a different weapon?

Gee, ANOTHER thread about how you like nice, long, hard guns. What a surprise.

Actually, it is only a surprise to you.....I have made it quite obvious that I post about the 2nd Amendment, the one amendment that is under direct assault by left wingers, and has the least popular support of the general American people....

And of course, you imply a sexual attitude about guns...which is typical of anti-gunners. I think it has to do with anti gunners having deep seated sexual issues......they see a gun and they become sexually aroused....they feel guilty, and awkward about this feeling of sexual arousal, but they don't know how to stop it.....there only solution is to demand that all guns be banned....and to "project" their confused sexual attraction for guns onto other people......

Psychological projection - Wikipedia

Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.[1]

Mudda....I suggest that you seek professional help.....your sexual attraction to firearms is not normal, and it is not healthy....please get help before you hurt yourself or others...

The 2nd amendment doesn't protect an unfettered access to any weapon you want. So the government has already screwed you.

No one said it did...but you guys keep saying that as if it means you can ban every single gun you want,and a long as we have a single shot .22, you think the 2nd Amendment is still being followed......

AR-15s are protected......just to let you know...

I don't care what's protected, just that you 2nd amendment losers know that the government has already curtailed your 2nd amendment and you either didn't know or ... well, you didn't realize it, so now that you know your protection is been faked to fool you, now what?

 

[12icer]

I don't care what's protected, just that you 2nd amendment losers know that the government has already curtailed your 2nd amendment and you either didn't know or ... well, you didn't realize it, so now that you know your protection is been faked to fool you, now what?

Not gonna be curtailed for long, The new version of the second will be only conservatives are intellectually capable to own firearms, and Vote. Any liberal terrorist who applies will be incarcerated immediately because they hate guns, and are dangerous to all other citizens. You liberals are treasonous, murdering, terrorist that try to use the government to give yourself control OVER other peoples rights. That is about to stop with the eradication of political correctness, and the end of intimidation, and extortion by liberal pet groups.

 

[2aguy]

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.

Your zealotry is undermining your arguments:

In a self defense situation, many times the victim will likely be injured in some way...when you are injured, and even when you are not....you get hit with a spike of adrenaline to deal with the situation....and the adrenaline affects your ability to do small motor movement...like changing a magazine.

The research if from an actual researcher.....a criminologist who has actually studied gun violence as one of his areas of research....in fact, he started out as a gun control advocate...till he did the actual research.

And how is explaining the truth about what happens in a violent attack zealotry? Have you researched fighting....adrenaline....the effects of adrenaline on the body under dramatic stress?

 

[Mudda]

I don't care what's protected, just that you 2nd amendment losers know that the government has already curtailed your 2nd amendment and you either didn't know or ... well, you didn't realize it, so now that you know your protection is been faked to fool you, now what?

Not gonna be curtailed for long, The new version of the second will be only conservatives are intellectually capable to own firearms, and Vote. Any liberal terrorist who applies will be incarcerated immediately because they hate guns, and are dangerous to all other citizens. You liberals are treasonous, murdering, terrorist that try to use the government to give yourself control OVER other peoples rights. That is about to stop with the eradication of political correctness, and the end of intimidation, and extortion by liberal pet groups.

You're worse than a democrat!

 

[jwoodie]

And how is explaining the truth about what happens in a violent attack zealotry? Have you researched fighting....adrenaline....the effects of adrenaline on the body under dramatic stress?

The point is that you only apply dynamic stress to victims, not perpetrators.