CDZ Are anti gunners serious when they say they will stop at 10 round magazines?

[2aguy]

Do you think full auto's and armed Abrams tanks should be legal for me to purchase?

I do. The point of the 2nd was to have a well armed citizenry to keep the government in check, and be able to resist if said government became tyrannical. Is there any threat of our government becoming tyrannical today? No, of course not. The same was once true of pre-American revolution England too though, so that argument rings pretty hollow for most pro-2nd students of history. There is, and cannot be, a law(s) that would permanently prevent a government from becoming oppressive and tyrannical, therefore we MUST have the option of being able to mount an effective resistance to such oppression and tyranny.

So, as long as the military has full autos and tanks, we should maintain the RIGHT to acquire and possess them as well.

FWIW, I draw the line at nukes. It is my opinion that nukes should remain a purely strategic weapon, and NEVER be used. I wish we could live in a world without them, unfortunately that is impossible. However, there is no reasonable use for such weapons in a government resistance scenario for either side, therefore there is no reasonable reason for civilians to acquire or possess them. There MAY be other weapons systems too, such as a "Strategic Missile Defense" system that would be impractical for civilians.

How much of an effective resistance do you think a few rifles and handguns will be against our military? Admit that your silly fantasy about resisting the government has no relation to reality, and gun nuts are just doing what gun nuts do.

more effective than asking them to stop killing us.

Have you had a problem with the government killing you. Do you expect the government to kill you in the near future?

The German people in the 1920s didn't have any thoughts that their government would murder them....20 years later the German government murdered 6 million unarmed Germans in gas chambers.....

20 years......

 

[2aguy]

I do. The point of the 2nd was to have a well armed citizenry to keep the government in check, and be able to resist if said government became tyrannical. Is there any threat of our government becoming tyrannical today? No, of course not. The same was once true of pre-American revolution England too though, so that argument rings pretty hollow for most pro-2nd students of history. There is, and cannot be, a law(s) that would permanently prevent a government from becoming oppressive and tyrannical, therefore we MUST have the option of being able to mount an effective resistance to such oppression and tyranny.

So, as long as the military has full autos and tanks, we should maintain the RIGHT to acquire and possess them as well.

FWIW, I draw the line at nukes. It is my opinion that nukes should remain a purely strategic weapon, and NEVER be used. I wish we could live in a world without them, unfortunately that is impossible. However, there is no reasonable use for such weapons in a government resistance scenario for either side, therefore there is no reasonable reason for civilians to acquire or possess them. There MAY be other weapons systems too, such as a "Strategic Missile Defense" system that would be impractical for civilians.

How much of an effective resistance do you think a few rifles and handguns will be against our military? Admit that your silly fantasy about resisting the government has no relation to reality, and gun nuts are just doing what gun nuts do.

more effective than asking them to stop killing us.

Have you had a problem with the government killing you. Do you expect the government to kill you in the near future?

well since you're entire premise of *needing* an effective defense would be useless against our government, i was going on the presumption of continuing that thought, not starting a new one.

you are the one who said the guns wouldn't do any good against the gov. i'm just saying IF we should EVER GET TO that situation, i'd rather have them than not.

Not my premise. Only an idiot would think a rad tag bunch of gun nuts would offer any problem for our military. Gun nuts claim that is why they want so many guns on a regular basis.

You mean like the ragtag buch in Iraq and Afghanistan who drove out obama?

 

[BULLDOG]

Other than being being capable of fully automatic and burst firing, and the seer and bolt carrier differences that allow that, what is the difference between an M-16 and an AR-15?

That is the difference...the only one that counts. There are 13 million AR-15 civilian rifles, none of them are capable of firing in burst or fully automatic mode.......they are civilian self defense rifles that are now the most popular hunting rifle...they are also used by civilian police...

A weapon designed specifically for military combat that has it's full auto capability removed is still a weapon designed specifically for military combat

No....when you remove the select fire, fully automatic fire ability....it is no longer a military rifle...it becomes a civilian and police rifle.......

So if I take a 22 rimfire simi-auto and convert it to full auto, that would make it a military grade combat weapon? Full auto and select fire are the only determinations of what is used in combat?

No...the military also uses pump action shot guns and bolt action rifles.... those are also military grade weapons.....and you will get around to banning those too...seeing as how the the British mass shooter in Cumbria used a pump action shot gun and a bolt action rifle......

So now we'r back to your paranoia damaged imagination again.
If Select fire and full auto is not the only difference between a designed for combat M-16, and an Ar-15 what is?

 

[BULLDOG]

Do you think full auto's and armed Abrams tanks should be legal for me to purchase?

I do. The point of the 2nd was to have a well armed citizenry to keep the government in check, and be able to resist if said government became tyrannical. Is there any threat of our government becoming tyrannical today? No, of course not. The same was once true of pre-American revolution England too though, so that argument rings pretty hollow for most pro-2nd students of history. There is, and cannot be, a law(s) that would permanently prevent a government from becoming oppressive and tyrannical, therefore we MUST have the option of being able to mount an effective resistance to such oppression and tyranny.

So, as long as the military has full autos and tanks, we should maintain the RIGHT to acquire and possess them as well.

FWIW, I draw the line at nukes. It is my opinion that nukes should remain a purely strategic weapon, and NEVER be used. I wish we could live in a world without them, unfortunately that is impossible. However, there is no reasonable use for such weapons in a government resistance scenario for either side, therefore there is no reasonable reason for civilians to acquire or possess them. There MAY be other weapons systems too, such as a "Strategic Missile Defense" system that would be impractical for civilians.

How much of an effective resistance do you think a few rifles and handguns will be against our military? Admit that your silly fantasy about resisting the government has no relation to reality, and gun nuts are just doing what gun nuts do.

more effective than asking them to stop killing us.

Have you had a problem with the government killing you. Do you expect the government to kill you in the near future?

The German people in the 1920s didn't have any thoughts that their government would murder them....20 years later the German government murdered 6 million unarmed Germans in gas chambers.....

20 years......

100 years ago.

 

[BULLDOG]

How much of an effective resistance do you think a few rifles and handguns will be against our military? Admit that your silly fantasy about resisting the government has no relation to reality, and gun nuts are just doing what gun nuts do.

more effective than asking them to stop killing us.

Have you had a problem with the government killing you. Do you expect the government to kill you in the near future?

well since you're entire premise of *needing* an effective defense would be useless against our government, i was going on the presumption of continuing that thought, not starting a new one.

you are the one who said the guns wouldn't do any good against the gov. i'm just saying IF we should EVER GET TO that situation, i'd rather have them than not.

Not my premise. Only an idiot would think a rad tag bunch of gun nuts would offer any problem for our military. Gun nuts claim that is why they want so many guns on a regular basis.

You mean like the ragtag buch in Iraq and Afghanistan who drove out obama?

You're planning a war with the US military?

 

[2aguy]

That is the difference...the only one that counts. There are 13 million AR-15 civilian rifles, none of them are capable of firing in burst or fully automatic mode.......they are civilian self defense rifles that are now the most popular hunting rifle...they are also used by civilian police...

A weapon designed specifically for military combat that has it's full auto capability removed is still a weapon designed specifically for military combat

No....when you remove the select fire, fully automatic fire ability....it is no longer a military rifle...it becomes a civilian and police rifle.......

So if I take a 22 rimfire simi-auto and convert it to full auto, that would make it a military grade combat weapon? Full auto and select fire are the only determinations of what is used in combat?

No...the military also uses pump action shot guns and bolt action rifles.... those are also military grade weapons.....and you will get around to banning those too...seeing as how the the British mass shooter in Cumbria used a pump action shot gun and a bolt action rifle......

So now we'r back to your paranoia damaged imagination again.
If Select fire and full auto is not the only difference between a designed for combat M-16, and an Ar-15 what is?

It is the difference.....that is the difference that makes one a military rifle and the other a civilian rifle.....The AR-15 is a civilian rifle..it cannot fire in burst or automatic.....there are 13 million of them and none of them can fire automatic fire....the AR-15 is designed for civillian and police use....and they are popular because of that.....

 

[2aguy]

I do. The point of the 2nd was to have a well armed citizenry to keep the government in check, and be able to resist if said government became tyrannical. Is there any threat of our government becoming tyrannical today? No, of course not. The same was once true of pre-American revolution England too though, so that argument rings pretty hollow for most pro-2nd students of history. There is, and cannot be, a law(s) that would permanently prevent a government from becoming oppressive and tyrannical, therefore we MUST have the option of being able to mount an effective resistance to such oppression and tyranny.

So, as long as the military has full autos and tanks, we should maintain the RIGHT to acquire and possess them as well.

FWIW, I draw the line at nukes. It is my opinion that nukes should remain a purely strategic weapon, and NEVER be used. I wish we could live in a world without them, unfortunately that is impossible. However, there is no reasonable use for such weapons in a government resistance scenario for either side, therefore there is no reasonable reason for civilians to acquire or possess them. There MAY be other weapons systems too, such as a "Strategic Missile Defense" system that would be impractical for civilians.

How much of an effective resistance do you think a few rifles and handguns will be against our military? Admit that your silly fantasy about resisting the government has no relation to reality, and gun nuts are just doing what gun nuts do.

more effective than asking them to stop killing us.

Have you had a problem with the government killing you. Do you expect the government to kill you in the near future?

The German people in the 1920s didn't have any thoughts that their government would murder them....20 years later the German government murdered 6 million unarmed Germans in gas chambers.....

20 years......

100 years ago.

Funny........the Jews say "Never Forget." People like you not only forgot, you want to repeat the same mistake that allowed it to happen.

 

[2aguy]

more effective than asking them to stop killing us.

Have you had a problem with the government killing you. Do you expect the government to kill you in the near future?

well since you're entire premise of *needing* an effective defense would be useless against our government, i was going on the presumption of continuing that thought, not starting a new one.

you are the one who said the guns wouldn't do any good against the gov. i'm just saying IF we should EVER GET TO that situation, i'd rather have them than not.

Not my premise. Only an idiot would think a rad tag bunch of gun nuts would offer any problem for our military. Gun nuts claim that is why they want so many guns on a regular basis.

You mean like the ragtag buch in Iraq and Afghanistan who drove out obama?

You're planning a war with the US military?

Nope...the same way I am not planning on being robbed or murdered.

 

[iceberg]

I do. The point of the 2nd was to have a well armed citizenry to keep the government in check, and be able to resist if said government became tyrannical. Is there any threat of our government becoming tyrannical today? No, of course not. The same was once true of pre-American revolution England too though, so that argument rings pretty hollow for most pro-2nd students of history. There is, and cannot be, a law(s) that would permanently prevent a government from becoming oppressive and tyrannical, therefore we MUST have the option of being able to mount an effective resistance to such oppression and tyranny.

So, as long as the military has full autos and tanks, we should maintain the RIGHT to acquire and possess them as well.

FWIW, I draw the line at nukes. It is my opinion that nukes should remain a purely strategic weapon, and NEVER be used. I wish we could live in a world without them, unfortunately that is impossible. However, there is no reasonable use for such weapons in a government resistance scenario for either side, therefore there is no reasonable reason for civilians to acquire or possess them. There MAY be other weapons systems too, such as a "Strategic Missile Defense" system that would be impractical for civilians.

How much of an effective resistance do you think a few rifles and handguns will be against our military? Admit that your silly fantasy about resisting the government has no relation to reality, and gun nuts are just doing what gun nuts do.

more effective than asking them to stop killing us.

Have you had a problem with the government killing you. Do you expect the government to kill you in the near future?

well since you're entire premise of *needing* an effective defense would be useless against our government, i was going on the presumption of continuing that thought, not starting a new one.

you are the one who said the guns wouldn't do any good against the gov. i'm just saying IF we should EVER GET TO that situation, i'd rather have them than not.

Not my premise. Only an idiot would think a rad tag bunch of gun nuts would offer any problem for our military. Gun nuts claim that is why they want so many guns on a regular basis.

i beg to differ.

"How much of an effective resistance do you think a few rifles and handguns will be against our military? "

what premise is this making? you're saying *if* they come at us a few handguns and rifles won't help.

i'm saying *if* they come at us, i'd rather have them than not.

and funny, when you want to take them away, they're deadly automatic weapons CNN puts grenade launchers on, but when used against the gov, they're pretty worthless.

seems to be a contradiction.

 

[BULLDOG]

A weapon designed specifically for military combat that has it's full auto capability removed is still a weapon designed specifically for military combat

No....when you remove the select fire, fully automatic fire ability....it is no longer a military rifle...it becomes a civilian and police rifle.......

So if I take a 22 rimfire simi-auto and convert it to full auto, that would make it a military grade combat weapon? Full auto and select fire are the only determinations of what is used in combat?

No...the military also uses pump action shot guns and bolt action rifles.... those are also military grade weapons.....and you will get around to banning those too...seeing as how the the British mass shooter in Cumbria used a pump action shot gun and a bolt action rifle......

So now we'r back to your paranoia damaged imagination again.
If Select fire and full auto is not the only difference between a designed for combat M-16, and an Ar-15 what is?

It is the difference.....that is the difference that makes one a military rifle and the other a civilian rifle.....The AR-15 is a civilian rifle..it cannot fire in burst or automatic.....there are 13 million of them and none of them can fire automatic fire....the AR-15 is designed for civillian and police use....and they are popular because of that.....

If that is the only thing that makes it a military grade combat weapon, why won't that 22 rimfire become one if converted. I suspect those two things aren't the only things. What about converting an AR-15 to auto? Would it then be a military grade weapon?

 

[BULLDOG]

How much of an effective resistance do you think a few rifles and handguns will be against our military? Admit that your silly fantasy about resisting the government has no relation to reality, and gun nuts are just doing what gun nuts do.

more effective than asking them to stop killing us.

Have you had a problem with the government killing you. Do you expect the government to kill you in the near future?

The German people in the 1920s didn't have any thoughts that their government would murder them....20 years later the German government murdered 6 million unarmed Germans in gas chambers.....

20 years......

100 years ago.

Funny........the Jews say "Never Forget." People like you not only forgot, you want to repeat the same mistake that allowed it to happen.

This is not Nazi Germany.

 

[BULLDOG]

How much of an effective resistance do you think a few rifles and handguns will be against our military? Admit that your silly fantasy about resisting the government has no relation to reality, and gun nuts are just doing what gun nuts do.

more effective than asking them to stop killing us.

Have you had a problem with the government killing you. Do you expect the government to kill you in the near future?

well since you're entire premise of *needing* an effective defense would be useless against our government, i was going on the presumption of continuing that thought, not starting a new one.

you are the one who said the guns wouldn't do any good against the gov. i'm just saying IF we should EVER GET TO that situation, i'd rather have them than not.

Not my premise. Only an idiot would think a rad tag bunch of gun nuts would offer any problem for our military. Gun nuts claim that is why they want so many guns on a regular basis.

i beg to differ.

"How much of an effective resistance do you think a few rifles and handguns will be against our military? "

what premise is this making? you're saying *if* they come at us a few handguns and rifles won't help.

i'm saying *if* they come at us, i'd rather have them than not.

and funny, when you want to take them away, they're deadly automatic weapons CNN puts grenade launchers on

I'm saying that IF you think that is a possibility you are a paranoid goober.

 

[iceberg]

more effective than asking them to stop killing us.

Have you had a problem with the government killing you. Do you expect the government to kill you in the near future?

well since you're entire premise of *needing* an effective defense would be useless against our government, i was going on the presumption of continuing that thought, not starting a new one.

you are the one who said the guns wouldn't do any good against the gov. i'm just saying IF we should EVER GET TO that situation, i'd rather have them than not.

Not my premise. Only an idiot would think a rad tag bunch of gun nuts would offer any problem for our military. Gun nuts claim that is why they want so many guns on a regular basis.

i beg to differ.

"How much of an effective resistance do you think a few rifles and handguns will be against our military? "

what premise is this making? you're saying *if* they come at us a few handguns and rifles won't help.

i'm saying *if* they come at us, i'd rather have them than not.

and funny, when you want to take them away, they're deadly automatic weapons CNN puts grenade launchers on

I'm saying that IF you think that is a possibility you are a paranoid goober.

granted. and i'm saying IF it does happen, i'd simply rather have the guns than not.

 

[BlackSand]

If Select fire and full auto is not the only difference between a designed for combat M-16, and an Ar-15 what is?

Depending on the make and model ... The caliber of the cartridge, basic operation, actual design and available attachment options.
The rounds aren't even the same for all models ... And can range from .223, NATO 5.56 x 45 to 7.62 x 39 (.308).

I am pretty sure this is why the argument is generally a bunch of minutia ... There are no absolutes.
The weapons can be confused ... Different manufacturers make them differently (they also don't all have the same name or nomenclature).

It would be tough to write legislation because it would also have to include firearms that don't necessarily meet all of those requirements.
It would be easier to write a law that simply stated ... No more "scary guns" because that is about the only thing they actually all have in common (to some people anyway).

.

 

[iceberg]

If Select fire and full auto is not the only difference between a designed for combat M-16, and an Ar-15 what is?

Depending on the make and model ... The caliber of the cartridge, basic operation, actual design and available attachment options.
The rounds aren't even the same for all models ... And can range from .223, NATO 5.56 x 45 to 7.62 x 39 (.308).

I am pretty sure this is why the argument is generally a bunch of minutia ... There are no absolutes.
The weapons can be confused ... Different manufacturers make them differently (they also don't all have the same name or nomenclature).

It would be tough to write legislation because it would also have to include firearms that don't necessarily meet all of those requirements.
It would be easier to write a law that simply stated ... No more "scary guns" because that is about the only thing they actually all have in common (to some people anyway).

.

and that's the rub. they keep saying they're far worse than "normal" guns but can't define it from there that doesn't include a ruger 10/22 rifle as well.

so the rule of "scary" is as good as any other they toss out but now they can just say a mini-14 looks scary cause of the barrel cover.

the more they try the more they realize there are not real major differences other than the looks and you can ACCESSORIZE many ar-15s as the added bonus. so make a rule of "can't put more than 3 items on your gun at a time" next?

 

[rightwinger]

The Heller decision was a gift to the anti-gun control crowd

They found that the DC restrictions on handguns were excessive and were not supported by a pressing government interest

But even Heller made it clear that the government had a right to ban certain firearms if they could prove a pressing societal reason for the ban

Given the preference of mass murderers to use assault type weapons with large capacity magazines and the lack of a pressing reason why private citizens need so much firepower...Even Heller would agree with the ban

Yeah....no. Considering there are 13 million AR-15 rifles in private hands...and 2 were used for crimes......one by a guy who was already banned from owning one and who the government screwed up in his background check.....and no, you don't get to ban them.....

And magazine size has nothing to do with how many people die.....you have seen the research...here it is again...

Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages by Gary Kleck :: SSRN

Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings?
The most common rationale for an effect of LCM use is that they allow mass killers to fire many rounds without reloading.
LCMs are used is less than 1/3 of 1% of mass shootings.
News accounts of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs were used, occurring in the U.S. in 1994-2013, were examined.
There was only one incident in which the shooter may have been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload.
In all of these 23 incidents the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or by changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2-4 second delay for each magazine change.
Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain slow enough rates of fire such that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.

--------

We did not employ the oft-used definition of “mass murder” as a homicide in which four or more victims were killed, because most of these involve just four to six victims (Duwe 2007), which could therefore have involved as few as six rounds fired, a number that shooters using even ordinary revolvers are capable of firing without reloading.

LCMs obviously cannot help shooters who fire no more rounds than could be fired without LCMs, so the inclusion of “nonaffectable” cases with only four to six victims would dilute the sample, reducing the percent of sample incidents in which an LCM might have affected the number of casualties.

Further, had we studied only homicides with four or more dead victims, drawn from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports, we would have missed cases in which huge numbers of people were shot, and huge numbers of rounds were fired, but three or fewer of the victims died.


For example, in one widely publicized shooting carried out in Los Angeles on February 28, 1997, two bank robbers shot a total of 18 people - surely a mass shooting by any reasonable standard (Table 1).

Yet, because none of the people they shot died, this incident would not qualify as a mass murder (or even murder of any kind).

Exclusion of such incidents would bias the sample against the proposition that LCM use increases the number of victims by excluding incidents with large numbers of victims. We also excluded shootings in which more than six persons were shot over the entire course of the incident but shootings occurred in multiple locations with no more than six people shot in any one of the locations, and substantial periods of time intervened between episodes of shooting. An example is the series of killings committed by Rodrick Dantzler on July 7, 2011.

Once eligible incidents were identified, we searched through news accounts for details related to whether the use of LCMs could have influenced the casualty counts.

Specifically, we searched for

(1) the number of magazines in the shooter’s immediate possession,

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine,

(3) the number of guns in the shooter’s immediate possession during the incident,

(4) the types of guns possessed,

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident,

(6) the number of rounds fired,

(7) the duration of the shooting from the first shot fired to the last, and (8) whether anyone intervened to stop the shooter.

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

We identified 23 total incidents in which more than six people were shot at a single time and place in the U.S. from 1994 through 2013 and that were known to involve use of any magazines with capacities over ten rounds.


Table 1 summarizes key details of the LCMinvolved mass shootings relevant to the issues addressed in this paper.

(Table 1 about here) What fraction of all mass shootings involve LCMs?

There is no comprehensive listing of all mass shootings available for the entire 1994-2013 period, but the most extensive one currently available is at the Shootingtracker.com website, which only began its coverage in 2013.

-----

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

(1) the shooter was reloading, or because

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Detachable magazines of any size can malfunction, which would at least temporarily stop a prospective mass shooter from firing, and thereby provide an opportunity for bystanders to stop the shooter.
It is possible that the bystander intervention in the Tucson case could have occurred regardless of what size magazines the shooter possessed, since a shooter struggling with a defective small-capacity magazine would be just as vulnerable to disruption as one struggling with a defective large-capacity magazine. Thus, it remains unclear whether the shooter was reloading when the bystanders tackled him.
-----
The offenders in LCM-involved mass shootings were also known to have reloaded during 14 of the 23 (61%) incidents with magazine holding over 10 rounds.

The shooters were known to have not reloaded in another two of these 20 incidents and it could not be determined if they reloaded in the remaining seven incidents.

Thus, even if the shooters had been denied LCMs, we know that most of them definitely would have been able to reload smaller detachable magazines without interference from bystanders since they in fact did change magazines.

The fact that this percentage is less than 100% should not, however, be interpreted to mean that the shooters were unable to reload in the other nine incidents.

It is possible that the shooters could also have reloaded in many of these nine shootings, but chose not to do so, or did not need to do so in order to fire all the rounds they wanted to fire. This is consistent with the fact that there has been at most only one mass shootings in twenty years in which reloading a semiautomatic firearm might have been blocked by bystanders intervening and thereby stopping the shooter from doing all the shooting he wanted to do. All we know is that in two incidents the shooter did not reload, and news accounts of seven other incidents did not mention whether the offender reloaded.

----

For example, a story in the Hartford Courant about the Sandy Hook elementary school killings in 2012 was headlined “Shooter Paused, and Six Escaped,” the text asserting that as many as six children may have survived because the shooter paused to reload (December 23, 2012). ''

The author of the story, however, went on to concede that this was just a speculation by an unnamed source, and that it was also possible that some children simply escaped when the killer was shooting other children.

There was no reliable evidence that the pauses were due to the shooter reloading, rather than his guns jamming or the shooter simply choosing to pause his shooting while his gun was still loaded.

The plausibility of the “victims escape” rationale depends on the average rates of fire that shooters in mass shootings typically maintain.

If they fire very fast, the 2-4 seconds it takes to change box-type detachable magazines could produce a slowing of the rate of fire that the shooters otherwise would have maintained without the magazine changes, increasing the average time between rounds fired and potentially allowing more victims to escape during the betweenshot intervals.

On the other hand, if mass shooters fire their guns with the average interval between shots lasting more than 2-4 seconds, the pauses due to additional magazine changes would be no longer than the pauses the shooter typically took between shots even when not reloading.

In that case, there would be no more opportunity for potential victims to escape than there would have been without the additional magazine changes

-----

In sum, in nearly all LCM-involved mass shootings, the time it takes to reload a detachable magazine is no greater than the average time between shots that the shooter takes anyway when not reloading.

Consequently, there is no affirmative evidence that reloading detachable magazines slows mass shooters’ rates of fire, and thus no affirmative evidence that the number of victims who could escape the killers due to additional pauses in the shooting is increased by the shooter’s need to change magazines.

The AR-15 has become the weapon of choice for mass killers
If you are going to slaughter a bunch of young children, an AR-15 makes you look like a badass and fulfills your Rambo fantasies

 

[rightwinger]

I never said I did.

But you missed the point that magazine size is irrelevant to anyone hell bent on killing people

But only people intent on killing lots of people want a 100 round magazine.

They can kill more people with a rental Truck.....the Vegas shooter had standard magazines and murdered 58 in 11 minutes of shooting......the rental truck in France murdered 89 people in 5 minutes.......

Magazines have nothing to do with the number murdered......

When rental trucks become a major killer in this country, we should consider legislation to regulate access to rental trucks

Right now, two thirds of all murders and 30,000 deaths a year are attributable to guns

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I do. The point of the 2nd was to have a well armed citizenry to keep the government in check, and be able to resist if said government became tyrannical. Is there any threat of our government becoming tyrannical today? No, of course not. The same was once true of pre-American revolution England too though, so that argument rings pretty hollow for most pro-2nd students of history. There is, and cannot be, a law(s) that would permanently prevent a government from becoming oppressive and tyrannical, therefore we MUST have the option of being able to mount an effective resistance to such oppression and tyranny.

So, as long as the military has full autos and tanks, we should maintain the RIGHT to acquire and possess them as well.

FWIW, I draw the line at nukes. It is my opinion that nukes should remain a purely strategic weapon, and NEVER be used. I wish we could live in a world without them, unfortunately that is impossible. However, there is no reasonable use for such weapons in a government resistance scenario for either side, therefore there is no reasonable reason for civilians to acquire or possess them. There MAY be other weapons systems too, such as a "Strategic Missile Defense" system that would be impractical for civilians.

How much of an effective resistance do you think a few rifles and handguns will be against our military? Admit that your silly fantasy about resisting the government has no relation to reality, and gun nuts are just doing what gun nuts do.

more effective than asking them to stop killing us.

Have you had a problem with the government killing you. Do you expect the government to kill you in the near future?

well since you're entire premise of *needing* an effective defense would be useless against our government, i was going on the presumption of continuing that thought, not starting a new one.

you are the one who said the guns wouldn't do any good against the gov. i'm just saying IF we should EVER GET TO that situation, i'd rather have them than not.

Not my premise. Only an idiot would think a rad tag bunch of gun nuts would offer any problem for our military. Gun nuts claim that is why they want so many guns on a regular basis.

i guess you never heard of vietnam iraq or afghanistan right?

 

[2aguy]

No....when you remove the select fire, fully automatic fire ability....it is no longer a military rifle...it becomes a civilian and police rifle.......

So if I take a 22 rimfire simi-auto and convert it to full auto, that would make it a military grade combat weapon? Full auto and select fire are the only determinations of what is used in combat?

No...the military also uses pump action shot guns and bolt action rifles.... those are also military grade weapons.....and you will get around to banning those too...seeing as how the the British mass shooter in Cumbria used a pump action shot gun and a bolt action rifle......

So now we'r back to your paranoia damaged imagination again.
If Select fire and full auto is not the only difference between a designed for combat M-16, and an Ar-15 what is?

It is the difference.....that is the difference that makes one a military rifle and the other a civilian rifle.....The AR-15 is a civilian rifle..it cannot fire in burst or automatic.....there are 13 million of them and none of them can fire automatic fire....the AR-15 is designed for civillian and police use....and they are popular because of that.....

If that is the only thing that makes it a military grade combat weapon, why won't that 22 rimfire become one if converted. I suspect those two things aren't the only things. What about converting an AR-15 to auto? Would it then be a military grade weapon?

It would make it fully automatic....but you have to make it fully automatic, it isn't a fully automatic weapon....as it is, it is a semi auto civilian rifle, not a military rifle........however, the bolt action rifle, and the pump action shotgun actually are used by the military in combat, today.....

You are trying to make a point, but you don't have one.....if you take the civilian rifle, and turn it into a military weapon, then you think you can say we can ban the civilian weapon....by making it into a military weapon......

The AR-15 is a civilian rifle, it has never been used by the military, has never been used in a war....it is a civilian rifle used by civilians and civilian law enforcement...and no matter how you try, you can't turn it into a military weapon.

Bolt action rifles....are military weapons...right now, with no tinkering....pump action shot guns are military weapons...right now, with no tinkering....and both are being used in actual war zones.....the AR-15 has never been used in a war zone.....

 

[2aguy]

I never said I did.

But you missed the point that magazine size is irrelevant to anyone hell bent on killing people

But only people intent on killing lots of people want a 100 round magazine.

They can kill more people with a rental Truck.....the Vegas shooter had standard magazines and murdered 58 in 11 minutes of shooting......the rental truck in France murdered 89 people in 5 minutes.......

Magazines have nothing to do with the number murdered......

When rental trucks become a major killer in this country, we should consider legislation to regulate access to rental trucks

Right now, two thirds of all murders and 30,000 deaths a year are attributable to guns

No.....22,018 deaths are attributable to suicide.....9,616 deaths are attributable to illegal crime........cars.....attributable to over 35,000 deaths.....

Gun suicide..

Leading Causes of Death | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC

2015
Gun suicide...

22,018

Non Gun suicide...

22,078
========================

Gun Accidental death.....
2015

489

==================

Gun murder ( 70-80% of the victims of gun murder are actual criminals, not law abiding people)

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8


2015--

9,616

=======================

Suicide
...even though Japan, Korea, China, all have absolute gun control for law abiding citizens...only criminals and cops can have guns.......and they have higher suicide rates than we do....and our non-gun suicide rate has been higher than our gun suicide rate for 2 years in a row.....

Gun Accidental Death...

Gun accidents....in a country with over 320,000,000 people...... with 400,000,000 guns in private hands, and over 15,700,000 people carrying guns for self defense..... 489 accidental gun deaths....

Gun murder
Of the 9,616 gun murders in this country, 70-80% of the victims are criminals, engaged in criminal activity or part of the criminal life style....and of the remaining victims....many of them are friends and family of the criminal...caught up in the criminal's lifestyle.....