Did These Guys Get Background Checks...before Killing 9 Year Old...

[2aguy]

That mass shooter in CA didn't bother illegally getting a hi cap magazine. And if he had there is a chance to catch him illegally buying a 30 round magazine before he kills people.

No he didn't...and he still was able to kill a lot of people...and you can't catch him buying a legal 10 round magazine...or dozens of them over time...or more than one pistol...

 

[2aguy]

Are you suggesting a handgun ban?

No, but by your logic we would have to ban hands and feet...if only to save one life...

 

[Brain357]

But there is a chance he will be stopped reloading after 10 shots. Or he might drop his next magazine. Or he might shoot himself reaching for his next gun...

That mass shooter in CA didn't bother illegally getting a hi cap magazine. And if he had there is a chance to catch him illegally buying a 30 round magazine before he kills people.

No he didn't...and he still was able to kill a lot of people...and you can't catch him buying a legal 10 round magazine...or dozens of them over time...or more than one pistol...

 

[Brain357]

I've not suggested banning guns. I've said we should limit the capacity of magazines. NRA study shows most defenses are only 2 shots. Mass shooters and criminals use many more than that. When there was a magazine limit I don't recall the world falling apart.

Are you suggesting a handgun ban?

No, but by your logic we would have to ban hands and feet...if only to save one life...

 

[2aguy]

So again, why do you want to make it so easy for mass shooters?

Oh, not me...I want them to face armed resistance...the most effective way to stop them...considering that when a mass shooting occurs the first thing they do is send in people with guns...cops...I would rather allow people to have a choice as to how long they have to wait for people with guns to get to the scene...to stop the mass shooter...

Keep in mind...the Gabby Giffords shooting was lucky...they stopped him because he was too close to other people and they grabbed him...Columbine, navy yard, Santa Barbara, Sandy Hook, Northern University, the two Fort Hood shootings, Pearl Mississippi...

Norway, South Korea, Nairobi, Mumbai....Mexico...

I want mass shooters scared away from targets because they know people will shoot back...and not wait 4 minutes or more for people...with guns...to arrive...I would prefer they were already at the shooting site...when they can actually save more lives...

 

[2aguy]

NRA study shows most defenses are only 2 shots.

So that poor saps who needs more than 2 shots...screw them...let them die...of course...

 

[Brain357]

I've suggested nothing against that. But I would actually help the concealed carry hero. Some mass shooter with a 20 round mag is going to outgun the carry shooter with maybe a 7+1 right? Wouldn't you prefer the shooter has a 10 rd mag?

So again, why do you want to make it so easy for mass shooters?

Oh, not me...I want them to face armed resistance...the most effective way to stop them...considering that when a mass shooting occurs the first thing they do is send in people with guns...cops...I would rather allow people to have a choice as to how long they have to wait for people with guns to get to the scene...to stop the mass shooter...

Keep in mind...the Gabby Giffords shooting was lucky...they stopped him because he was too close to other people and they grabbed him...Columbine, navy yard, Santa Barbara, Sandy Hook, Northern University, the two Fort Hood shootings, Pearl Mississippi...

Norway, South Korea, Nairobi, Mumbai....Mexico...

I want mass shooters scared away from targets because they know people will shoot back...and not wait 4 minutes or more for people...with guns...to arrive...I would prefer they were already at the shooting site...when they can actually save more lives...

 

[Brain357]

Well you wouldn't limit it to 2. Would probably be 10 because it has been done before. That's 5X more than he will need. And well you've been unable to provide an example of a defender ever needing so many shots. I can provide lots of examples of mass shooters and criminals using hi cap magazines. You want to say screw all the victims they are used against and care about the one person who might possibly need another bullet one day? Oh well you said he can just reload fast so I guess we are covered there too.

NRA study shows most defenses are only 2 shots.

So that poor saps who needs more than 2 shots...screw them...let them die...of course...

 

[2aguy]

Wouldn't you prefer the shooter has a 10 rd mag?

I would prefer the shooter not have a gun or magazine...but I live in Real World...

If you ban magazines due to capacity...the only one likely to have a 20-30 round magazine will be the active shooter...the law abiding citizen...one, will be disarmed by the no guns allowed sign at the site of the shooting, and 2, will only have the legal magazine if that is what the law says...the law abiding...you know...obey the law...

So again...you have simply disarmed the good guy...who now has to wait for cops with 20-30 round magazines to arrive 4 minutes or more after the shooting starts...

 

[2aguy]

This is a look at how stupid magazine capacity bans really are...another nice sounding term...without real world cures...And this also points out something I learned in Active Shooter training at work...

Killers in a mass shooting are calm and collected as they gun down innocent people...changing a magazine isn't a problem for them...look at Terror in the Mall, as the terrorists calmly change magazines...because no one is shooting back at them...

The instructor pointed out that in all the accounts of these mass shooters there was one thing in common...they were completely calm as they walked around shooting people...

Question of the Day Do Magazine Capacity Limits Limit Lethality - The Truth About Guns

The events I looked into: Columbine, VT, the Wisconsin Sikh Temple, Giffords, Aurora and Sandy Hook. The data is quite interesting and opens up a substantial line of argument against high capacity magazine bans.

Average Time a Shooter is Active: 10.3 Minutes
Average Total Shots Fired: 89.8
Shooting Tempo: 8.7 Rounds/Min
Wound to Kill Ratio: 1 : 2.86

Given that anyone, with minimal practice, can do a magazine change in roughly three seconds, the data indicates that magazine capacity actually has almost no impact on the overall lethality of an active shooter.

Other data points bolster the case; the wounded : killed ratio is far higher than defensive shootings or police shootings, indicative of the fact that active shooters are not rushed and are (unfortunately) in complete control of the situation.

With the exception of the Giffords shooting (which is an exceptional case for a number of reasons, more of an open air political assassination than a typical mass shooting), the ONLY thing that has ever stopped a mass shooter is armed confrontation (more accurately, the notion that armed confrontation is close by).”

 

[Brain357]

Well the CA shooter showed he might just go to the store and buy a gun legally which will be a 10 rd.

What concealed carry gun holds 20-30 rounds? Where do you put it?

If somebody uses 20-30 rounds in defense how many of those you think will hit some innocent person? I think if you are defending you need to be a bit more careful than that.

Wouldn't you prefer the shooter has a 10 rd mag?

I would prefer the shooter not have a gun or magazine...but I live in Real World...

If you ban magazines due to capacity...the only one likely to have a 20-30 round magazine will be the active shooter...the law abiding citizen...one, will be disarmed by the no guns allowed sign at the site of the shooting, and 2, will only have the legal magazine if that is what the law says...the law abiding...you know...obey the law...

So again...you have simply disarmed the good guy...who now has to wait for cops with 20-30 round magazines to arrive 4 minutes or more after the shooting starts...

 

[Brain357]

Look at the Tucson shooter who was stopped at reload and the video I showed of the guy failing his reload. Then you realize your link is bull.

This is a look at how stupid magazine capacity bans really are...another nice sounding term...without real world cures...

Question of the Day Do Magazine Capacity Limits Limit Lethality - The Truth About Guns

 

[2aguy]

One mass shooter incident proves your point...gee...that's nice...while I have again...dozens that disprove it...

Columbine, VT, the Wisconsin Sikh Temple, Giffords, Aurora and Sandy Hook. The data is quite interesting and opens up a substantial line of argument against high capacity magazine bans.

When no one is shooting back the killer has all the time in the world...since the police are at least 4 or more minutes away...and they usually plan their attacks to maximize their killing...and they study other mass shootings...

 

[2aguy]

some more common sense on magazine limit stupidity...

The Threat Posed by Gun Magazine Limits - Reason.com

Another reason is that changing magazines takes one to three seconds, which will rarely make a difference in assaults on unarmed people. The gunman in Connecticut, for example, reportedly fired about 150 rounds, so he must have switched his 30-round magazines at least four times; he stopped only because police were closing in, which prompted him to kill himself.

Magazine size is more likely to matter for people defending against aggressors, which is why it is dangerously presumptuous for the government to declare that no one needs to fire more than X number of rounds. As self-defense experts such as firearms instructor Massad Ayoobpoint out, there are various scenarios, including riots, home invasions, and public attacks by multiple aggressors, in which a so-called large-capacity magazine can make a crucial difference, especially when you recognize that people firing weapons under pressure do not always hit their targets and that assailants are not always stopped by a single round.

Living in Los Angeles during the 1992 riots, I was glad that shopkeepers in Koreatown had "large-capacity" magazines to defend themselves and their property against rampaging mobs. I bet they were too. In fact, argues gun historian Clayton Cramer, those magazines may have saved rioters' lives as well, since they allowed business owners to fire warning shots instead of shooting to injure or kill.

 

[Brain357]

Here is another:
Long Island Rail Road massacre - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Ferguson had emptied two 15-round magazines during the shooting. While reloading his third magazine, somebody yelled, "Grab him!"[13] Passengers Michael O'Connor, Kevin Blum and Mark McEntee tackled Ferguson and pinned him to one of the train's seats.[

That is 2. Want more?

And then there is the video of the failed reload. I can show you more of those too.

And the story of the woman accidently shooting herself. Lots of those too.

Now how have you disproved anything?

You keep arguing like I'm saying take guns away. Focus, I've not said that at all.

One mass shooter incident proves your point...gee...that's nice...while I have again...dozens that disprove it...

Columbine, VT, the Wisconsin Sikh Temple, Giffords, Aurora and Sandy Hook. The data is quite interesting and opens up a substantial line of argument against high capacity magazine bans.

When no one is shooting back the killer has all the time in the world...since the police are at least 4 or more minutes away...and they usually plan their attacks to maximize their killing...and they study other mass shootings...

 

[2aguy]

Some more common sense against magazine limit stupidity...

High-Capacity-Magazine Bans National Review Online

How much actual “advantage” does a high-capacity magazine give to a monster who is shooting unarmed people? Practically none. The victims have no idea whether he is about to change magazines and are therefore in no position to flee or engage in a barehand attack (even if one of them has the remarkable coolness of mind to try something that courageously foolhardy). For practical purposes, a mass murderer with ten-round magazines is about as deadly as one with 20-round magazines.

 

[Brain357]

This one seems to have almost no value.

some more common sense on magazine limit stupidity...

The Threat Posed by Gun Magazine Limits - Reason.com

Another reason is that changing magazines takes one to three seconds, which will rarely make a difference in assaults on unarmed people. The gunman in Connecticut, for example, reportedly fired about 150 rounds, so he must have switched his 30-round magazines at least four times; he stopped only because police were closing in, which prompted him to kill himself.

Magazine size is more likely to matter for people defending against aggressors, which is why it is dangerously presumptuous for the government to declare that no one needs to fire more than X number of rounds. As self-defense experts such as firearms instructor Massad Ayoobpoint out, there are various scenarios, including riots, home invasions, and public attacks by multiple aggressors, in which a so-called large-capacity magazine can make a crucial difference, especially when you recognize that people firing weapons under pressure do not always hit their targets and that assailants are not always stopped by a single round.

Living in Los Angeles during the 1992 riots, I was glad that shopkeepers in Koreatown had "large-capacity" magazines to defend themselves and their property against rampaging mobs. I bet they were too. In fact, argues gun historian Clayton Cramer, those magazines may have saved rioters' lives as well, since they allowed business owners to fire warning shots instead of shooting to injure or kill.

 

[Brain357]

Why don't you debate me rather than posting articles that all say the same thing? None of them have any real valid points.

Some more common sense against magazine limit stupidity...

High-Capacity-Magazine Bans National Review Online

 

[2aguy]

Here is another:
Long Island Rail Road massacre - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Ferguson had emptied two 15-round magazines during the shooting. While reloading his third magazine, somebody yelled, "Grab him!"[13] Passengers Michael O'Connor, Kevin Blum and Mark McEntee tackled Ferguson and pinned him to one of the train's seats.[

Really, this is the best you can do...

One...it was another gun free zone...he was the only guy with a gun and he killed a lot of people...because no one else had a gun...

2) He changed his magazine and kept killing...

3) the only reason they rushed the guy during the last magazine change is because they were in a confined space and had no other option except to let him start shooting again...

A confined space where they were already in close proximity to the attacker...same with Giffords attack...he got too close to do his shooting...

And the train was a gun free zone...the hunting preserve of mass shooters...

 

[2aguy]

because the articles come from people with actual knowledge of the subject and who can write clearly on the topic...