Mass shooting: At Least 11 Shot At Gilroy Garlic Festival

[Slade3200]

We have the strongest military in the world.

Yeah, but the 2nd Amendment isn't about that. You have been told what the 2nd is for, and still you try and deflect away from its original purpose.

Do support any regulations of firearms such as.... Auto ban, Carry permits, no guns allowed in schools?

Auto Ban.....what do you mean by this? If you mean full automatic, no.

Carry permits....no, they are unConstitutional.....a fee or test to exercise a Right is UnConstitutional....

No guns allowed to be carried by law abiding citizens with lawful business in schools....no.

Gun free school zones are targeted by some mass public shooters. We know from actual mass public shooters either captured or from their notes that they target gun free zones. If a parent is legally allowed to carry a gun, they should be able to take it with them into the school. As long as they don't draw the weapon without cause, what is the problem? If they take the weapon out they can already be arrested for disturbing the police.

We already have every law we need to deal with gun criminals...the problem is that once we catch them, democrats like you keep letting them out of jail and prison. There were 12 mass public shootings in 2018. 93 people, total, killed in those shootings.

The vast majority of gun murder, the other 10,899 are criminals who are already banned from buying, owning and carrying a gun...we can already arrest them with all the laws we already have.........again, it is people like you letting them out of prison that causes the gun crime and gun murder...

you are the problem.

Why am I the problem? I’m just asking questions. And these laws we have in place wouldn’t exist if we did things your way, is that right? Everybody would be legally allowed to have a gun because that is their right. There would be now restrictions to purchase, we could go buy a machine gun with a slurpy at the local 7-11, is that right?

711 doesn't carry firearms for sale, and the libs can't force them to do it.

The real issue isn't the 2nd Amendment, but instead people's God Given right to keep and bear arms. Nothing more basic than the right to defend yourself. Not who should or shouldn't carry firearms for sale.

Right now, there is a good system. Legitimate stores show discretion and sell weapons to responsible people. Do you have a problem with this system we have now?

Or would you prefer to force citizens into the backroom of cocktail lounges for cash sales of firearms and zero discretion or background checking?

No I don’t have a problem with the current system. I’d like to see some improvements made to the background check database and wouldn’t mind a registration system to help with criminal investigations. But I think we are doing a fine job. I definitely don’t think regulations are unconstitutional and should be done away with. That is so silly in my opinion

 

[Slade3200]

I remember my DAD buying 2 guns in the mid 60s , cash sale and walk out with the guns in WOLFS hardware store and it was about the mid 60s Slade .

That’s great Pis... back when we used to be free. The good ol days!

 

[cnm]

then in this case i'm speaking to the liberals i have seen that when you try to tell them functionally there is no difference between the AR-15 and a browning longtrac semi-automatic, they refuse to go "wow, i misunderstood that weapon" and instead say "then semi-automatics needs to go also".

That's because you won't have mentioned that the magazine capacity of the AR 15 is multiples of that of the Browning and you won't have explained the implications of it being removable/replaceable. Standard gun nut deviance.

 

[cnm]

I actually rarely carry.

So what about all these citizen prevented shootings? You're leaving it up to the police to do it instead?

 

[cnm]

New Zealand has more guns than Australia and a lower gun murder rate than Australia......culture, not guns.....the real issue, not the "I hate guns" issue.

Military style semi automatics and handguns are effectively banned. That is the difference.

 

[cnm]

I think that applying 'per capita' stats is a trap..in this discussion...since it is the cultural influence that plays the largest role.

For gods' sakes, you were the one applying the population argument.

 

[cnm]

It seems sort of silly to compare America with countries we have nothing in common with.

I wondered why you didn't bother comparing the US with first world nations.

 

[cnm]

Why do you want to make law abiding people out to be the bad guys here?

Because the latest shooter was law abiding until he wasn't. How come you can't grasp that?

He wasn't law abiding.

What convictions did he have?

 

[Olde Europe]

I think that applying 'per capita' stats is a trap..in this discussion...since it is the cultural influence that plays the largest role.

For gods' sakes, you were the one applying the population argument.

You do understand that "population size" and "per capita" are quite different metrics, no?

 

[2aguy]

When it comes to mass shootings I’d say they are really rare when there is strong gun control. Why do you [Bluesman] support mass killers?

It's a necessary condition of easy access to handguns and military style semi automatic rifles.

No, it isn't ...........

Your theory...more guns = more gun crime.

26 years of experience: More Americans own and carry guns over the last 26 years.

Result....Gun crime went down 75%. Gun murder went down 49%. Violent crime went down 72%

In science....you, real science....when you have a theory that states one thing, and when you test that theory the exact opposite thing happens, that means your theory is wrong.

Your theory, More Guns = More Gun crime

Over 26 years more guns, more people carrying guns

Result: Gun murder down 49%, gun crime down 75%, violent crime down 72%.

The exact opposite of your theory happened....

In science, that means your theory is wrong.

And don't go off on the tangent that I can't prove that people owning and carrying guns was a direct cause of the lower rates....that isn't your theory.....your theory is regardless of any other factor, more guns in more hands = more gun crime.....

You are wrong.

We have about 18 million semi-automatic rifles in private hands....how many were used to commit murder in 2017, the last year we have stats for?

403

Cars killed over 38,000....

Drowning killed over 3,500

knives killed 1,591

So...according to your logic, we now need to ban cars, pools and knives......as well as clubs and hands and feet...

Rifles...... 403

Knives.....1,591

Hands and feet......696

Clubs.....467

 

[2aguy]

Hey, 2aguy, you never answered. Are you so scared that you carry a sidearm when you go grocery shopping?

I did answer, in detail....go back and look.

 

[2aguy]

Why do you want to make law abiding people out to be the bad guys here?

Because the latest shooter was law abiding until he wasn't. How come you can't grasp that?

Wrong...again.....90% of people who commit murder have long histories of crime and violence......they are not normal people who snap and then kill.......that is the truth.

The Criminology of Firearms


In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications and some empirical research of its own about guns. The Academy could not identify any gun restriction that had reduced violent crime, suicide or gun accidents.

Why don't gun bans work? Because they rely on voluntary compliance by gun-using criminals. Prohibitionists never see this absurdity because they deceive themselves into thinking that, as Katherine Christoffel has said: "[M]ost shootings are not committed by felons or mentally ill people, but are acts of passion that are committed using a handgun that is owned for home protection."

Christoffel, et al., are utterly wrong. The whole corpus of criminological research dating back to the 1890'sshows murderers "almost uniformly have a long history of involvement in criminal behavior," and that "[v]irtually all" murderers and other gun criminals have prior felony records — generally long ones.

While only 15 percent of Americans have criminal records, roughly 90 percent of adult murderers have prior adult records — exclusive of their often extensive juvenile records — with crime careers of six or more adult years including four major felonies. Gerald D. Robin, writing for the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences,notes that, unlike ordinary gun owners, "the average murderer turns out to be no less hardened a criminal than the average robber or burglar."

 

[2aguy]

No, I'm not a dealer. If I was I would have a Fed. license.
The burden is on the buyer.
The law says those are not to possess firearms. So the law is they shouldn't be buying.

So you don’t support felons or mental people from getting gun but you want no measures in place to prevent them from getting guns? So your basically just making a legal play where if one commits a crime with a gun they get a harsher sentence... that’s your deterrent?

And what constitutions somebody mentally ineligible to own a gun? How do they know?

I'm a proponent of the 3 strike rule.
3 strikes, life in prison.

Example:
Commit a crime - Strike 1
Have a gun while committing a crime - Strike 2
Use the gun while committing a crime, firing the weapon, assaulting with the weapon - Strike 3

Ok thanks for explaining that but you didn’t answer any of my questions

Only in a court of law can anyone's rights be removed.
If a person is adjudicated guilty of a felony, their right to possess a weapon and to vote, removed.
Same if they are adjudicated mentally incompetent.

That’s interesting... would you apply the same standard to the first amendment and remove all censorship regulations? Allow Max Strength Penis Enlargement LLC to toss up a billboard next to the local elementary school with their world famous Mandingo modeling his 13 inch python?

You fail to understand.....those regulations effect the public space .... carrying a gun effects no one unless you actually break the law.

 

[2aguy]

Yeah, but the 2nd Amendment isn't about that. You have been told what the 2nd is for, and still you try and deflect away from its original purpose.

Do support any regulations of firearms such as.... Auto ban, Carry permits, no guns allowed in schools?

Auto Ban.....what do you mean by this? If you mean full automatic, no.

Carry permits....no, they are unConstitutional.....a fee or test to exercise a Right is UnConstitutional....

No guns allowed to be carried by law abiding citizens with lawful business in schools....no.

Gun free school zones are targeted by some mass public shooters. We know from actual mass public shooters either captured or from their notes that they target gun free zones. If a parent is legally allowed to carry a gun, they should be able to take it with them into the school. As long as they don't draw the weapon without cause, what is the problem? If they take the weapon out they can already be arrested for disturbing the police.

We already have every law we need to deal with gun criminals...the problem is that once we catch them, democrats like you keep letting them out of jail and prison. There were 12 mass public shootings in 2018. 93 people, total, killed in those shootings.

The vast majority of gun murder, the other 10,899 are criminals who are already banned from buying, owning and carrying a gun...we can already arrest them with all the laws we already have.........again, it is people like you letting them out of prison that causes the gun crime and gun murder...

you are the problem.

Why am I the problem? I’m just asking questions. And these laws we have in place wouldn’t exist if we did things your way, is that right? Everybody would be legally allowed to have a gun because that is their right. There would be now restrictions to purchase, we could go buy a machine gun with a slurpy at the local 7-11, is that right?

711 doesn't carry firearms for sale, and the libs can't force them to do it.

The real issue isn't the 2nd Amendment, but instead people's God Given right to keep and bear arms. Nothing more basic than the right to defend yourself. Not who should or shouldn't carry firearms for sale.

Right now, there is a good system. Legitimate stores show discretion and sell weapons to responsible people. Do you have a problem with this system we have now?

Or would you prefer to force citizens into the backroom of cocktail lounges for cash sales of firearms and zero discretion or background checking?

No I don’t have a problem with the current system. I’d like to see some improvements made to the background check database and wouldn’t mind a registration system to help with criminal investigations. But I think we are doing a fine job. I definitely don’t think regulations are unconstitutional and should be done away with. That is so silly in my opinion

Registration doesn't help criminal investigations...how do we know, from Canada, in particular.....they tried to register 15 million long guns and had to stop....the expense, the cost in manpower and resources and they didn't help solve crime....

A street gun has a long life on the street before it is finally captured in a crime, which means knowing the original owner has nothing to do with who used it for the crime...

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up

15 million guns.....1 billion dollars...and it didn't work....



The law passed and starting in 1998 Canadians were required to have a license to own firearms and register their weapons with the government. According to Canadian researcher (and gun enthusiast) Gary Mauser, the Canada Firearms Center quickly rose to 600 employees and the cost of the effort climbed past $600 million. In 2002 Canada’s auditor general released a report saying initial cost estimates of $2 million (Canadian) had increased to $1 billion as the government tried to register the estimated 15 million guns owned by Canada’s 34 million residents.

The registry was plagued with complications like duplicate serial numbers and millions of incomplete records, Mauser reports. One person managed to register a soldering gun, demonstrating the lack of precise standards. And overshadowing the effort was the suspicion of misplaced effort: Pistols were used in 66% of gun homicides in 2011, yet they represent about 6% of the guns in Canada. Legal long guns were used in 11% of killings that year, according to Statistics Canada, while illegal weapons like sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, which by definition cannot be registered, were used in another 12%.

So the government was spending the bulk of its money — about $17 million of the Firearms Center’s $82 million annual budget — trying to register long guns when the statistics showed they weren’t the problem.

There was also the question of how registering guns was supposed to reduce crime and suicide in the first place. From 1997 to 2005, only 13% of the guns used in homicides were registered. Police studies in Canada estimated that 2-16% of guns used in crimes were stolen from legal owners and thus potentially in the registry. The bulk of the guns, Canadian officials concluded, were unregistered weapons imported illegally from the U.S. by criminal gangs.

Finally in 2011, conservatives led by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper voted to abolish the long-gun registry and destroy all its records. Liberals argued the law had contributed to the decline in gun homicides since it was passed. But Mauser notes that gun homicides have actually been rising in recent years, from 151 in 1999 to 173 in 2009, as violent criminal gangs use guns in their drug turf wars and other disputes. As in the U.S., most gun homicides in Canada are committed by young males, many of them with criminal records. In the majority of homicides involving young males, the victim and the killer are know each other.



----------

3/24/18



Ten Myths Of The Long Gun Registry | Canadian Shooting Sports Association


Myth #4: Police investigations are aided by the registry.
Doubtful. Information contained in the registry is incomplete and unreliable. Due to the inaccuracy of the information, it cannot be used as evidence in court and the government has yet to prove that it has been a contributing factor in any investigation. Another factor is the dismal compliance rate (estimated at only 50%) for licensing and registration which further renders the registry useless. Some senior police officers have stated as such: “The law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered ... the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives.” Former Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino, January 2003.




3/24/18



https://www.quora.com/In-countries-...olved-at-least-in-part-by-use-of-the-registry



Tracking physical objects that are easily transferred with a database is non-trivial problem. Guns that are stolen, loaned, or lost disappear from the registry. The data is has to be manually entered and input mistakes will both leak guns and generate false positive results.

Registries don’t solve straw-purchases. If someone goes through all of the steps to register a gun and simply gives it to a criminal that gun becomes unregistered. Assuming the gun is ever recovered you could theoretically try and prosecute the person who transferred the gun to the criminal, but you aren’t solving the crime you were trying to. Remember that people will prostitute themselves or even their children for drugs, so how much deterrence is there in a maybe-get-a-few-years for straw purchasing?

Registries are expensive. Canada’s registry was pitched as costing the taxpayer $2 million and the rest of the costs were to be payed for with registration fees. It was subject to massive cost overruns that were not being met by registrations fees. When the program was audited in 2002 the program was expected to cost over $1 billion and that the fee revenue was only expected to be $140 million.

No gun recovered. If no gun was recovered at the scene of the crime then your registry isn’t even theoretically helping, let alone providing a practical tool. You need a world where criminals meticulously register their guns and leave them at the crime scene for a registry to start to become useful.

Say I have a registered gun, and a known associate of mine was shot and killed. Ballistics is able to determine that my known associate was killed with the same make and model as the gun I registered. A registry doesn’t prove that my gun was used, or that I was the one doing the shooting. I was a suspect as soon as we said “known associate” and the police will then being looking for motive and checking for my alibi.

 

[2aguy]

Yeah, but the 2nd Amendment isn't about that. You have been told what the 2nd is for, and still you try and deflect away from its original purpose.

Do support any regulations of firearms such as.... Auto ban, Carry permits, no guns allowed in schools?

Auto Ban.....what do you mean by this? If you mean full automatic, no.

Carry permits....no, they are unConstitutional.....a fee or test to exercise a Right is UnConstitutional....

No guns allowed to be carried by law abiding citizens with lawful business in schools....no.

Gun free school zones are targeted by some mass public shooters. We know from actual mass public shooters either captured or from their notes that they target gun free zones. If a parent is legally allowed to carry a gun, they should be able to take it with them into the school. As long as they don't draw the weapon without cause, what is the problem? If they take the weapon out they can already be arrested for disturbing the police.

We already have every law we need to deal with gun criminals...the problem is that once we catch them, democrats like you keep letting them out of jail and prison. There were 12 mass public shootings in 2018. 93 people, total, killed in those shootings.

The vast majority of gun murder, the other 10,899 are criminals who are already banned from buying, owning and carrying a gun...we can already arrest them with all the laws we already have.........again, it is people like you letting them out of prison that causes the gun crime and gun murder...

you are the problem.

Why am I the problem? I’m just asking questions. And these laws we have in place wouldn’t exist if we did things your way, is that right? Everybody would be legally allowed to have a gun because that is their right. There would be now restrictions to purchase, we could go buy a machine gun with a slurpy at the local 7-11, is that right?

711 doesn't carry firearms for sale, and the libs can't force them to do it.

The real issue isn't the 2nd Amendment, but instead people's God Given right to keep and bear arms. Nothing more basic than the right to defend yourself. Not who should or shouldn't carry firearms for sale.

Right now, there is a good system. Legitimate stores show discretion and sell weapons to responsible people. Do you have a problem with this system we have now?

Or would you prefer to force citizens into the backroom of cocktail lounges for cash sales of firearms and zero discretion or background checking?

No I don’t have a problem with the current system. I’d like to see some improvements made to the background check database and wouldn’t mind a registration system to help with criminal investigations. But I think we are doing a fine job. I definitely don’t think regulations are unconstitutional and should be done away with. That is so silly in my opinion

Do you understand that criminals, by Supreme Court ruling, do not have to register their illegal guns...because it violates their 5th Amendment protection against self incrimination? So the very people you want to target, do not have to comply with your proposal......

only normal people would suffer the consequences of not registering their guns....do you see how stupid that is?

Haynes v. United States - Wikipedia

As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration.[3][4] The National Firearms Act was amended after Haynes to make it apply only to those who could lawfully possess a firearm.

 

[2aguy]

New Zealand has more guns than Australia and a lower gun murder rate than Australia......culture, not guns.....the real issue, not the "I hate guns" issue.

Military style semi automatics and handguns are effectively banned. That is the difference.

It isn't the difference......they had those guns and still have a lower gun murder rate than Australia under their ban and confiscation......

And as more Americans over the last 26 years owned and carried guns, our gun murder rate went down 49% our gun crime rate went down 75%, our violent crime rate went down 72%.

Guns aren't the issue. It is culture and how you handle actual gun offenders when you arrest them. Democrats in this country keep letting repeat, violent gun felons out of jail over and over again, especially in our major cities...that is our problem, not John and Jane citizen who own a gun for self defense and other legal purposes.

 

[2aguy]

I actually rarely carry.

So what about all these citizen prevented shootings? You're leaving it up to the police to do it instead?

I'm not a cop......

And yes...when normal people have guns and are in the middle of a mass shooting they are 94% effective against the shooter....

Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% Of The Time At Active Shooter Events [FBI]

Of all the active shooter events there were 33 at which an armed citizen was present. Of those, Armed Citizens were successful at stopping the Active shooter 75.8% of the time (25 incidents) and were successful in reducing the loss of life in an additional 18.2% (6) of incidents. In only 2 of the 33 incidents (6.1%) was the Armed Citizen(s) not helpful in any way in stopping the active shooter or reducing the loss of life.

Thus the headline of our report that Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% Of The Time At Active Shooter Events.


In the 2 incidents at which the armed citizen “failed” to stop or slow the active shooter, one is the previously mentioned incident with hunters. The other is an incident in which the CCWer was shot in the back in a Las Vegas Walmart when he failed to identify that there were 2 Active Shooters involved in the attack. He neglected to identify the one that shot him in the back while he was trying to ambush the other perpetrator.

We also decided to look at the breakdown of events that took place in gun free zones and the relative death toll from events in gun free zones vs non-gun-free zones.

Of the 283 incidents in our data pool, we were unable to identify if the event took place in a gun-free zone in a large number (41%) of the events. Most of the events took place at a business, church, home, or other places at which as a rule of law it is not a gun free zone but potentially could have been declared one by the property owner. Without any information in the FBI study or any indication one way or the other from the news reports, we have indicated that event with a question mark.

If you look at all of the Active Shooter events (pie chart on the top) you see that for those which we have the information, almost twice as many took place in gun free zones than not; but realistically the vast majority of those for which we have no information (indicated as ?) are probably NOT gun free zones.

If you isolate just the events at which 8 or more people were killed the data paints a different picture (pie chart on the bottom). In these incidents, 77.8% took place in a gun-free zone suggesting that gun free zones lead to a higher death rate vs active shooter events in general

=====

One of the final metrics we thought was important to consider is the potential tendency for armed citizens to injure or kill innocent people in their attempt to “save the day.” A common point in political discussions is to point out the lack of training of most armed citizens and the decrease in safety inherent in their presence during violent encounters.

As you can see below, however, at the 33 incidents at which Armed Citizens were present, there were zero situations at which the Armed Citizen injured or killed an innocent person. It never happened.

 

[2aguy]

then in this case i'm speaking to the liberals i have seen that when you try to tell them functionally there is no difference between the AR-15 and a browning longtrac semi-automatic, they refuse to go "wow, i misunderstood that weapon" and instead say "then semi-automatics needs to go also".

That's because you won't have mentioned that the magazine capacity of the AR 15 is multiples of that of the Browning and you won't have explained the implications of it being removable/replaceable. Standard gun nut deviance.

Magazine capacity has no bearing on the number of people killed....31 people were killed at Virginia Tech with 2 pistols.......24 were killed at Luby's cafe with 2 pistols...

Magazine capacity has nothing to do with it.......the amount of time a shooter has before someone with a gun stops them determines how many people are killed. Shooters surrender, commit suicide or run away when they are confronted...so the faster someone points a gun at them, the more lives saved......as in Parkland, Colorado, Sandy Hook and other mass shootings where the shooter surrendered, killed themselves or ran away...

On Magazines and mass shootings..

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

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

I.

Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings?
========

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

--------

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Specifically, we searched for

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

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine,

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

(4) the types of guns possessed,

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident,

(6) the number of rounds fired,

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

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

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


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

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

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

-----


-----
The offenders in LCM-involved mass shootings were also known to have reloaded during 14 of the 23 (61%) incidents with magazine holding over 10 rounds.

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

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-----

 

[2aguy]

then in this case i'm speaking to the liberals i have seen that when you try to tell them functionally there is no difference between the AR-15 and a browning longtrac semi-automatic, they refuse to go "wow, i misunderstood that weapon" and instead say "then semi-automatics needs to go also".

That's because you won't have mentioned that the magazine capacity of the AR 15 is multiples of that of the Browning and you won't have explained the implications of it being removable/replaceable. Standard gun nut deviance.

Wrong.....magazine capacity doesn't matter.......what matters is how much time the shooter has before someone points a gun at them.......in Russia, a 5 shot pump action shotgun was used to kill 20 people in a mass public shooting....

And Russia has extreme gun control.....

Kerch Polytechnic College massacre - Wikipedia

The Kerch Polytechnic College massacre was a school shooting and bomb attack that occurred in Kerch, Crimea, on 17 October 2018.[2][3] Twenty victims were shot to death and 70 others wounded;

 

[pismoe]

I actually rarely carry.

So what about all these citizen prevented shootings? You're leaving it up to the police to do it instead?

-------------------------------------------- police are employees simply doing their jobs for a paycheck . They are the Police / public servants job or they wouldn't be paid . When an American carries a gun it is for their protection and convenience and LEGALLY that's it CNM .