Conflicting ideas...

[rrneck]

Saw this elsewhere on DU.

Increasing public safety by changing gun laws is about making it less easy to commit mass murder by forcing shooters to pause and reload. That's a terrible calculation to make, but it's reality.

As I recall, it has often been commented that people who carry guns could not possibly access the gun to help anyone should the need arise. They are just wannabe heros that would only succeed in getting somebody hurt.

So why is it that we are supposed to expect somebody to rush in and bodily tackle an active shooter when he pauses to reload (or at least run away), but it is impossible for someone to successfully reach to their waist and pull a pistol?

Does it make sense to expect people to move their entire bodies to either get out of the line of fire or personally intervene to stop an active shooter, but not to simply pull a pistol and shoot back? Why would we claim somebody who carries a gun is a "hero wannabe" while we would support forcing an active shooter to pause to reload to give time for some "hero wannabe" to jump on him?

Does one of these ideas make more sense than the other? Do either of them make sense?

[flamin lib]

1. So why is it that we are supposed to expect somebody to rush in and bodily tackle an active shooter

when he pauses to reload (or at least run away), but it is impossible for someone to successfully reach to
their waist and pull a pistol?"

Because it happens and in the cases I know of the Hero would have either shot the wrong person or been shot himself.

[rrneck]

2. You're probably referring to the Gabby Giffords shooting.

As I recall, that gun jammed because of the novelty magazine, not because the shooter was pausing to reload.

[flamin lib]

3. You recall wrong. He dropped the mag and had to try for another . . .

[AtheistCrusader]

4. The first responder with a firearm did precisely the right thing.

Note that he DIDN'T shoot the wrong person. He did not observe the shooting. He was inside the store. By the time he got outside, the actual shooter was already down.

Do you assume he would have shot the wrong person, or would certainly have been shot had he been IN the crowd outside the store, and observed the shooter directly? If so, why?

[flamin lib]

6. Because he said so in an interview. He came to the scene, saw a man with a

gun and prepared to draw his weapon but at the last instant realized the man with the gun was restraining someone. Caused enough doubt to hesitate. He was visibly shaken to the point that I thought he might throw up on camera. From the tone of the interview I suspect he'll never consider drawing down on anyone ever again.

Had he been in the crowd there's a 50/50 chance he'd have been shot as the first shooter always has the advantage and 80/20 that he would hit a bystander because, well, that's why they call it a crowd.

Also, Lanza had to reload and 11 six year-olds were able to escape the classroom while he changed magazines. It takes about 2 seconds for a reasonably skilled person to change mags on an AR; action locks open, eject empty mag, retrieve/insert new mag and trip the bolt. In highly charged situations it isn't unreasonable to expect it to take a bit longer. If 11 terrified six year-old children can escape a classroom during a mag change I'd say it's reasonable to believe more mag changes should mean more opportunities to escape or interfere with the gunman.

[AtheistCrusader]

16. You infer a lot.

And you make some stuff up. The man with the gun was not restraining Loughner when Zamudio challenged him, pushed him to the wall, and according to Zamudio, he dropped the weapon upon being challenged. So yeah, he was shaken. But no, based on several interviews I think he'd respond the same in a hypothetical future situation.

"Had he been in the crowd there's a 50/50 chance he'd have been shot as the first shooter always has the advantage"
Hilarious assessment. 50% of the crowd was not directly in front of the shooter, to be evaluated for potential threats and shot according to threat level. You have NO way of making any numerical assessment of his risk, because placement in the crowd alone randomizes the chances of Loughner even seeing him beyond measure.

"80/20 that he would hit a bystander because, well, that's why they call it a crowd."
Care to cite some instances where this happened in a lawful DGU/Active Shooter scenario? If you run down the list of shootings on Wikipedia, there are not many, but there are certainly some instances where an armed individual (Non-LEO) responded to an active shooter. Please do share how many bystanders were shot by armed resistance to the active shooter.

(I'll save you the trip: the number is ZERO)

The chances of it happening are certainly non-zero, it COULD happen. It historically has not happened very often. The closest I can think of was a shooter in a gas station that took a hostage, and the armed responder acted in self defense, firing at the hostage-taker, and hit/killed the hostage. That's actually the ONLY instance I can think of it happening. Arizona/Loughner was not a hostage scenario.

With Loughner, we likely got lucky due to his selection of large glock-18 machine pistol magazines, which are highly prone to malfunction. (They are only used by one military in the world for one hostage rescue scenario, for this reason.)

What Lanza's deal was, who knows. He didn't even completely empty all of his discarded mags, per the Coroner's statement.

[flamin lib]

22. (I'll save you the trip: the number is ZERO)

http://blog.chron.com/newswatch/2012/05/man-arrested-in-family-dollar-slaying/

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/armed-civilians-do-not-stop-mass-shootings

[Bazinga]

44. let me preface by saying

I believe the point regarding the risk of injuring a bystander is a valid one.

With that said, your first link is not a mass shooting ( the current topic of conversation), and your second has zero instances of an armed citizen injuring a bystander.

IMO, adding an armed civilians increases the risk of injury in cross-fire from zero to very, very small. It also increases the possibility of successful resistance from small to slightly less small.

[flamin lib]

48. So it's a case of risk:benefit ratio.

Your assessment is the risk goes up and the benefit is marginal (small to slightly less small).

Looks like a wash to me. Only thing is going from 0 to some seems more onerous.

But thanks for saying the success rate improvement is marginal at best.

As for topic meander, that happens with long threads, no intentional miss-direction meant.

[AtheistCrusader]

53. I don't blame you, I blame the author of that article.

There was no cost, not a single one of the shootings that author analyzed caused additional PROBLEMS during the shooting.

In two instances, they helped. That's not a wash. (And two instances the responders were praised by local police, and in one case by the Congress)

The success rate IS low. That is a reflection of a couple factors, primarily that less than 9% of the population carries, resulting in not many people being AROUND with a gun when needed. Also, as in the case of Tyler, Tx, we see a common thread of bad outcomes of people with pistols going up against people with rifles. That's a shitty proposition. The only thing worse would be to be completely unarmed. Pistols aren't for fighting people with rifles.

[AtheistCrusader]

46. My apologies.

It was a dollar store, not a gas station. That first link is the hostage situation I referred to. HOWEVER, slightly different than say, Arizona, where the armed bystander who was not in danger rushed in. In the Dollar store, the armed 'bystander' was actually a direct victim, who was defending himself, not rushing to the aid of others. Still, a bad outcome, no doubt. But it's actually not a 'armed responder to an active shooter', it's a simple case of self defense that injured and killed a second victim (hostage).

Your second link massively mischaracterizes the Tacoma Mall shooting, and the Tyler Texas courthouse. In the case of Tyler Texas, Wilson saved Arroyo Jr.'s life. He received a posthumous congressional commendation for it. Had Arroyo Sr. not been wearing both a bullet proof vest AND a flak jacket, Wilson would have lived to tell the tale as well. Wilson scored multiple hits, as attested by law enforcement that were on-scene who saw the hits. Still, he made his move and took his chances, and yes it cost him his life, but he DID undoubtedly save others. And the United States Congress recognized him for that selfless act. The fact that he died did not place any undue burden upon the other victims or upon law enforcement. Arroyo was kept occupied for SWAT to arrive on-scene and engage him directly. That's a 'win'. Wilson did not endanger anyone else, or shoot anyone other than Arroyo Sr, and clearly saved at least one life, possibly more.

For the Tacoma Mall, the author of the article you linked lied. The 6 people who were injured other than McKown, were shot BEFORE McKown engaged him. After the two encountered each other, no one else was shot. (Maldonado did take some hostages in the FYE records store, but no one was shot) McKown didn't endanger anyone else either. He got the drop on Maldonado, and instead of just shooting his happy ass, McKown tried to talk him into surrendering. He actually risked his own life to try and save THE SHOOTER. A bad outcome for McKown (Going up against a rifle with a pistol is bad news, common thread shared with Mark Allen Wilson in Tyler Tx) but that was his decision to make. He risked himself to try and get the shooter to surrender. How is this a bad thing? Would you prefer if he had executed Maldonado? I'd be ok with that outcome, but I respect McKown's decision. Again, he placed no undue burden on law enforcement, and no danger upon bystanders. Unlike Tyler Tx, I can SPECULATE that the exchange between the two allowed more potential victims to get away, but I cannot know that for sure. (Unlike Tyler Tx where Arroyo Sr was preparing to execute his son when Wilson intervened, as testified to by local law enforcement that were outgunned and pinned down in the courthouse entrance).

One could speculate that this statement: "None of these cases were included in our mass shootings data set because fewer than four victims died in each." is a direct result of McKown and Wilson's intervention. It is certainly plausible, if not a given.

Also, the author of the article makes a critical error here: "And law enforcement overwhelmingly hates the idea of armed citizens getting involved." Law enforcement was extremely respectful of and grateful for the intervention of Wilson in Tyler Tx. Up to that point, multiple officers were pinned down (and you can see them trying to get under cover and crawl out of the line of fire in surveillance video) in the entrance of the courthouse. The Police Department uttered gratitude for it before the US Congress commended him for it.

That's pretty cheap shit of the author to make that claim, while citing an instance in which the police were grateful for Wilson's intervention, even though he died.

[rrneck]

5. If you say so.

So the strategy of tackling the shooter depends on the shooter fumbling the mag switch. And shooting the gun dry rather than just leaving one round in the chamber so that the hero will get there just in time to get shot between the eyes. You would support legislation that depends on the ineptitude of a crazed gunman?

It takes about two seconds to switch magazines for somebody with minimal practice. How much ground do you think you could cover in two seconds if you (probably) had to stand up, turn around, and tackle a shooter?

If someone wants to kill a bunch of people with a gun, there are a lot of things for him to consider if he wants to do it right. One of the most important is to set up a kill zone so that people won't be able to respond when he reloads, drops a mag, or needs to move to another kill zone. And that's just one factor that the shooter can control among many. He can choose the most defenseless targets possible, a remote position to make himself inaccessible to intervention or spread his mass shooting out over a period of time.

So Loughner and they guy in Oregon did it wrong. Cho at Virginia Tech did it right. And the guns used were not an important factor in the success or failure of those mass shootings.

The physics, and the conflict of ideas, remain the same. If it makes sense for someone to be able to rush in and tackle an active shooter, it makes just as much sense to expect somebody to simply shoot them. Both possibilities carry with them tremendous risks. For the person who tries to rush in, if the shooter even sort of knows what he is doing (and there have been plenty who did) he or she might get shot themselves. For the person who tries to shoot the assailant, the risk is that they will shoot the wrong person.

[flamin lib]

7. If you say so. Almost never happens fut it feeds the fantasy. And that's all it is, a fantasy. nt

[rrneck]

8. Fantasy on both sides of the issue. nt

[flamin lib]

9. All I can reply with is that Virginia Tech has a campus security force that

includes a fully equipped SWAT team and all those "good guys with guns" didn't make a difference.

Ronald Reagan was surrounded by six secret service agents armed with pistols and Uzis yet a relative amateur shot him anyway. All those pros and they couldn't shoot because they'd hit someone in the crowd, like I said that's why they call it a crowd. Instead they rushed him and wrestled him to the ground. So much for a good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy with a gun.

[gejohnston]

10. SWAT team and all those "good guys with guns" didn't make a difference.

how could they make a difference when they were not there?

[flamin lib]

11. Reagan's secuity was all 'roun him. nt

[gejohnston]

12. take that up with the Treasury Dept.

[rrneck]

15. So

good guys WITHOUT guns would make a difference?

[flamin lib]

17. The point is that the good guy with a gun is

a specious argument. Would you agree that houses with swimming pools are more likely to have drownings? If so how do you argue that having more guns somehow decreases the possibility of accidentally shooting a bystander in the crowd?

[rrneck]

24. I already told you armed intervention was risky. nt

[flamin lib]

30. Have you got an answer to my question or not? nt

[rrneck]

32. I'll agree with you again.

Armed citizens increase the chances of the wrong people getting shot. Although I'm not aware of that happening in the course of a mass shooting.

Like I said armed response is just as difficult, unlikely, and dangerous as unarmed response.

How does the difficulty of armed response justify mandated magazine capacity limits? How did this idea come about? Why does it make sense? Look at what we're talking about here. We're talking about legislation designed to regulate the actions of a crazed madman to make him maybe one or two seconds less efficient in his project of killing a bunch of people at once. An occurrence that is thankfully very rare.

Who benefits from this controversy?

[flamin lib]

35. Answered you here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=122787

Please answer my question posed there.

[AtheistCrusader]

52. No one ever said that responding to an active shooter with a gun is a magic talisman that prevents

any and all harm. it's actually really risky.

Some armed responders fail utterly. There was one at the National Guard shooting in the IHop a couple years back. Shooter had a rifle. Responder had a pistol. Responder was across the parking lot. The responder opted to stay put, instead of rushing the shooter across an open parking lot, wherein he would have undoubtedly be gunned down, before ever entering range with his pistol. Sucks, he failed to help, but he didn't make it worse.
http://news.yahoo.com/sheriff-gunman-used-ak-47-ihop-shooting-223140323.html

But, there are times when it does help. This police officer's life was saved by a bystander with a gun.
http://www.ktxs.com/news/UPDATED-Names-of-victims-released-Three-dead-in-Early-shooting-Good-Samaritan-praised/-/14769632/15822008/-/rqu99pz/-/index.html
(and again, "Authorities praised". This cantankerous old bugger actually hit the dirtbag shooter with a .357 pistol at something like 300 feet, that's INSANE)

And likely this one too.
http://m.wafb.com/ms/p/si/57/view.m?id=124279&storyId=4527526

[Jenoch]

78. If Reagan had been shot more than once you would have a point.

The reason Reagan got shot is not because of the fault of his armed security detail performed inadequately. It was because the policy in place did not keep the public away from the president.

[Starboard Tack]

82. You make a good argument for the elimination of all semi-automatics

Let's face it, revolvers, shotguns and bolt action rifles are very effective weapons for self defense, but far less effective for those bent on killing large numbers of people.

[gejohnston]

83. let me fix it for you

Let's face it, revolvers, shotguns and lever action rifles are very effective weapons for self defense, but far less effective for those bent on killing large numbers of people. Actually you can with a bolt or lever, or even a single shot. If you have a .303 and the victims are crammed in a closet, one round hit one and the next four people behind him.

[Starboard Tack]

85. That's a big if. And we can discuss hypotheticals all day.

Point is, there is no easy solution, but if we all apply a little common sense a lot of lives can be saved when these loonies decide to act out.

[gejohnston]

88. thing is, loonies are a very small minority

any criminologist will tell you, and has been known since the 1890s, that 90 percent of all murderers have long adult, and often juvenile, criminal records. Most of their victims also have long rap sheets. It isn't that hard for a drug gang member to get a SMG or a pistol in London.

BTW, I define "common sense" the same way Albert Einstein: "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." IOW, "common sense" isn't a valid argument.

[Starboard Tack]

90. Thankfully, they are a small minority

But we're talking about these crazy individuals, not gang members, or the availability of guns in London. Individuals who are capable of killing many innocent people, randomly, in movie theaters and classrooms and shopping malls.
Dictators are a tiny minority of the overall population, but most become mass murderers.
Common sense isn't an argument. It is what it is. Obeying traffic laws and driving sober is common sense. Has nothing to do with prejudice. Leaving your gun at home unless you're going hunting or to the range is common sense. Taking it to class is a calculated risk.

[gejohnston]

92. policy shouldn't be based on black swans

But we're talking about these crazy individuals, not gang members, or the availability of guns in London. Individuals who are capable of killing many innocent people, randomly, in movie theaters and classrooms and shopping malls.

that is why I mention it. Australia's NFA was passed after Port Author. Australia had stricter gun laws on average (not federal laws, but each state had its own laws with NSW being the strictest, and Tasmania being the most liberal.) A several year trend started with a couple of biker gangs shooting it out (a total of seven gang members dead from both sides, no innocents hurt IIRC) and ended with Port Author. None before the two gangs. There have been three since Port Author, all by arson.

Dictators are a tiny minority of the overall population, but most become mass murderers.
Common sense isn't an argument. It is what it is. Obeying traffic laws and driving sober is common sense. Has nothing to do with prejudice.

Common sense simply doesn't exist as any INTP will tell you.

Leaving your gun at home unless you're going hunting or to the range is common sense. Taking it to class is a calculated risk.

False. Both are a calculated risk. My not carrying is based on a calculated risk based on being a unlikely crime victim (rural, white, not ostentatious) and the very slim probability of being in the wrong place wrong time. The calculated risk of carrying to class is based on the likelihood of the gun being detected and turned over to Wyoming (without chief of security permission) or Florida authorities.

[rrneck]

84. Not really.

See post #5.

I can put as much lead in the air with a pump shotgun as most people can with an AR15. If you want to kill (and terrorize) a bunch of people you don't have to do it all at once. Just spread the mass murder out over a period of time like the beltway killer.

And for this distinction without a difference we have to try to do away with autoloading firearms? Dream on.

[Starboard Tack]

86. A pump is a semi-automatic, at least IMO.

Laws are changing as attitudes are changing. Slowly, but surely. I very much doubt anything substantial will happen in my lifetime, but hopefully the trend toward safety will continue and there will be fewer mass killings. Slowing the process of reloading is a no-brainer and I welcome it.

[rrneck]

87. They're all semi automatic

unless it's a full auto or a single shot.

[Starboard Tack]

91. I don't consider a double barreled semi-automatic

and have no issue with owning one.

[Straw Man]

98. Semi-automatic

A pump is a semi-automatic, at least IMO.

In that case you're at odds with any technical definition as well as with the US Congress:

18 USCS § 921(28)- The term "semiautomatic rifle" means any repeating rifle which utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round, and which requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge.

--http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/semi-automatic-rifle/

Exactly what does "semi-automatic" mean to you? The recognized classes are 1. single-shot (which would also encompass multi-barrel guns), 2. repeater (lever, bolt, pump, revolver), 3. semi-auto (see above) and 4. auto (as above but not requiring a separate trigger pull for each shot). On what basis would you erase the distinction between the second and third classes?

I don't consider a double barreled semi-automatic

Yet in one respect it is closer to a semi-auto than any of the manual repeaters (pump, lever, bolt) because it doesn't require any manual manipulation between the first and second shots. Loading of the chamber(s) takes place before firing, and extraction takes place after. Nothing has to happen between the shots. For that reason, it has a very high rate of fire -- for a very short time. That's why clay shooters in events where doubles are thrown will use a double-barrel or a semi-auto, not a pump.

A skilled shooter can load and fire a double-barreled shotgun very quickly. I have seen a 14-year-old girl who could stand on a trap field with an open double gun in her right hand and two shells in her left, call "pull," and then load and fire the two shells, hitting both birds from a double-throw. She had only been shooting for a few months, but she was what you'd call a "natural."

[gejohnston]

89. actually, there are fewer

as there are fewer accidents with children. It only seems like it because of media "it bleeds it leads" in the first case.
see "Summer of the Shark"

The corporate media is part of the drum beat to push for stricter regulations on the second part.

http://www.medialit.org/reading-room/news-beyond-myth-objectivity

[Starboard Tack]

94. Fewer maybe, but nothing like few enough, which would be zero.

So let the media beat that drum as loud as need be, corporate, independent, whatever it takes.

[gejohnston]

95. so dishonesty is OK?

by claiming that the number is going up? While 50 a year is too many, but where is the drumbeat for the thousands that die in cars, ATVs, swimming pools? Sorry, the ends never justify the means.

[Starboard Tack]

100. I didn't say dishonesty is OK

I haven't read any pieces that claim the number is going up. The reporting may be going up, which is good. ATVs and swimming pools have nothing to do with this discussion.

[gejohnston]

101. the impression was there

ATVs and swimming pools have nothing to do with this discussion.

Are we talking about keeping kids safe? They both kill more kids by accident than guns. It is that calculated risk thing.

[Starboard Tack]

102. Keeping kids safe is the broader discussion

Here, we are talking about keeping them safe from those who might want to kill many of them in a short space of time with firearms.

[gejohnston]

103. The best way to do that is improved security in schools

and deal with the underlining causes. The claims that "Australia hasn't had any mass murders since the NFA was passed" is false. They had three, all with higher death tolls than any of the mass shootings except for Port Author. No mass shootings, true, but not mass murders.

Sandy Hook may have been the worst mass shooting in a school in the US, but wasn't the worst mass murder in a school.

[Starboard Tack]

104. Am I missing something here? Australia?

How did Australia get into the conversation? First swimming pools and now Australia.
BTW, I'm in Tennessee. Worst damn drivers I've ever seen inthis country. Don't know about Australian drivers.

[gejohnston]

105. the point was that

banning semi automatics or pump action rifles and shotguns, which is what Australia did, is no panacea. Many were not turned in, and we still need to keep kids safe from bombings and arson.

Tennessee worst drivers in the US? Might be. I don't know about Australian drivers, but driving in South Korea and Saudi Arabia can be very exciting.

[Starboard Tack]

106. There is no panacea and nobody AFAIK thinks there is.

The goal should be to save as many lives as possible with minimal infringement of individual freedoms.

[Robb]

13. Can you name an innocent bystander killed by a stray tackling?

[rrneck]

14. Nope.

How many innocent bystanders have been shot when someone intervened in a mass shooting? More than a handful? Any at all?

Why does it make sense to support legislation designed to make an active shooter less efficient to facilitate unarmed intervention while simultaneously claiming armed intervention is impossible?

[Robb]

18. You'll have to translate for me, I think.

Why does it make sense to support legislation designed to make an active shooter less efficient to facilitate unarmed intervention while simultaneously claiming armed intervention is impossible?

If I correctly understand the last clause to be a typical hyperbolic reinterpretation of what most are actually saying, e.g. that random armed citizens firing back is largely ineffective and disproportionately dangerous to bystanders, then the question becomes: why do you think it does not make sense to attempt to make an active shooter less efficient?

[rrneck]

21. Not only is the notion

of making an active shooter less efficient absurd on its face, trying to do so by adjusting a minor contributer to that efficiency through legislative fiat is doubly absurd. Much like mandating armed teachers.

[flamin lib]

25. This is a definition of absurd whith which I am not familiar. nt

[rrneck]

26. I believe you. nt

[Robb]

27. Well, at least you agree it's a contributor, even if a minor one.

[rrneck]

28. Of course it's a contributor.

Does magazine capacity make a sufficient contribution to warrant an act of congress and the cost of enforcement and political capital it will require?

There are about a zillion contributing factors that work together to make a mass murder happen. Magazine capacity barely makes the list. Why did that minor factor become important?

[flamin lib]

20. Ya' might wanr to check out these.

http://blog.chron.com/newswatch/2012/05/man-arrested-in-family-dollar-slaying/

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/armed-civilians-do-not-stop-mass-shootings

There are many others including police shoot outs and at least one military sniper.

"Why does it make sense to support legislation designed to make an active shooter less efficient to facilitate unarmed intervention while simultaneously claiming armed intervention is impossible?"

Yes, it does.

[rrneck]

23. So why does unarmed intervention make sense?

Why would you support legislation that depends on brave unarmed citizens exploiting a possible mistake made by a crazed killer?

We all know how dangerous it can be in a shootout. How does legislation that depends on inept criminals make anyone safer?

[flamin lib]

29. Introducing another gun into a shootout cannot, under any conceivable circumstance,

lessen the possibility of collateral damage.

In the Gifford's shooting 19 people were hit, no record of how many shots missed. Loughner was subdued by a 50 something year old woman while trying to change magazines long enough for others to come to her aid.

In Aurora, Colorado the shooter had a 100 round drum which jammed after firing ONLY 70 rounds. If he had to reload 7 times at 2 seconds each how many victims might have escaped? I ask because while the Sandy Hook shooter was reloading once 11 terrified six year-old children escaped their classroom.

I'll flip your question back to you: How does making the only limiting factor in firepower the physical ability to carry the weight of ammunition make anyone safer?

[rrneck]

34. It doesn't matter.

Anybody crazy enough to shoot a bunch of people can carry way more ammunition than he will be able to use.

[flamin lib]

37. That's not an answer, it's a capitulation. Explain how the only limiting factor to lethality

being the physical strength to carry ammunition makes anyone safer.

Proceed rrneck.

[rrneck]

40. It doesn't.

Because it's not the only limiting factor. It's at most a minor factor. Why does such a minor factor warrant a national debate?

[flamin lib]

43. Because since the mid '70s 4000 people have been killed by terrorists on US soil

and in the same period 900,000 have been killed with guns. We take our shoes off, get X-rayed, can't carry shampoo on planes, and have to arrive 2 hours before boarding time over 4000 deaths. Yet there can be NO change in gun safety, no matter how minor, in the face of almost a million gun deaths? Really?

Now, back at 'cha; if the lethality of unlimited fire power is only a minor factor, tell me what factors are greater--list in descending order please--and what do you propose to address those factors?

[Bazinga]

47. In what percentage of those deaths were more than 10 rounds fired?

7? 2? 1?

In the vast, vast majority of those, reloads were not a factor at all. Reloads only come into play in a very small (though obviously extremely tragic) category of crimes.

rrneck is right, Mag capacity is a very minor factor in gun crimes. The debate is whether or not the legislation will accomplish what it claims it will, and whether it will be worth the potential unintended consequences. In any case, the 900,000 killed in incidences that did not involve " high capacity" magazines can hardly be used as justification for these laws. The kids in Connecticut, the movie-goers in Aurora, absolutely, but using everyone ever killed by a gun of any kind is a bit disingenuous.

[flamin lib]

51. Gungeon methodoloy #4: Minute.

Is the number 900,000 not significant? Do we really have to dissect the debate down to clips vs magazines, how many magazine changes as a % of total deaths?

Please elaborate on unintended consequences. Also elaborate on the more important factors in the 900,000 deaths and your suggestions to impact them. Finally, if the cases wherein hi cap magazines can absolutely be used to justify mag limiting legislation, what do we have to disagree about?

[Bazinga]

74. I didn't say the number was insignificant.

that's almost a million people! How could that be insignificant? What I'm saying is their deaths are not justification for passing magazine capacity limits when magazine capacity had nothing to do with their deaths. It is akin to a Republican using the fact that half a million fetuses spontaneously abort every year as justification for passing laws against elective abortion. It's not that miscarriage is not tragic, it's that it is non sequitur.

As for the unintended consequences, I can't say I know what they all will be. But I know this much, the law of unintended consequences is one that not even congress can break.

[rrneck]

58. I guess that 4000 figure includes

the use of commercial aircraft and fertilizer.

Factors? In no particular order...

1. Single payer health care.
2. Reduce income inequality.
3. Curtail corporate dominance of the media.
4. Quality education that trains people to be something more than corporate drones.
5. Reform the tax code.

All the stuff Democrats are supposed to be good at. That way you have a healthy society rather than just trying to disarm angry people.

[flamin lib]

60. WHAT THE FUCK DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THIS THREAD?

Not very good at continuity are we?

Last I looked we were talking about gun safety.

What are the unintended consequences to gun safety/ownership/rights does limiting mag capacity engender?

[rrneck]

65. None.

Doesn't it seem futile to try to micromanage mass murder tactics with national legislation? But if we had a happier, healthier society there would be less chance of violence and healthier happier people to boot.

I think we are at the point of diminishing returns when it comes to firearm legislation. People are advocating a lot of expensive laws that will have no impact on the issue at hand. The OP is designed to highlight the absurdity of regulating a mass murderers efficiency in favor of regulating the possibility of an armed hero.

Who profits from that wasted effort?

[flamin lib]

68. Okay, nothing will ever work every single time so lets just ignore something

that might help in a few circumstances. People run stop signs so fuck it with the cost of installing them on new streets.

Limiting magazine capacity is the ONLY thing that can lessen the carnage in mass murders. Even at that it will take generations for the existing inventory to dissipate.

The only other thing that might help would be a national registry so that if someone who owns guns becomes ineligible to do so they can be found. That ain't happenin' in my lifetime.

[rrneck]

69. Limiting mag capacity will do nothing. ntt

[flamin lib]

70. Logic, reason and physics don't exist in your world do they?

Don't bother replying, you're my very first ignore.

[rrneck]

72. Gee, thanks.

But I'll reply anyway. You presented no workable logic. And you finally did what they all do - refuse to think for yourself and run away.

I've had this sort of conversation any number of times and it always ends the same. But the conversation will always be here for others to think about.

[rrneck]

36. Conceivable circumstance:

Military veteran with combat experience with a clear field of fire.

There are as many more as there are people and situations where that sort of thing may happen.

[flamin lib]

38. I call bullshit. nt

[rrneck]

39. Maybe.

Any less bullshit than a football player in the right place at the right time?

[flamin lib]

41. It's bullshit because the only way the the "field of fire" could be clear enough to not

add danger of collateral damage would be to have a completely empty field of fire in which case no human would be at hazard in which case why execute the shooter?

It's a fantasy, a gunner's wet dream, Red Dawn ReDux and a reach beyond your grasp.

[rrneck]

42. Define completely empty

and write legislation to mandate it.

[flamin lib]

45. Naaaa, not chaseing that red herring. It was you who postulated an empty field of

fire. I surmised that to be empty to the point of no risk it would mean no non combatants in the area, hence why execute the shooter?

I have backed limiting magazine capacity. That way lethality would be limited by how many magazines a shooter can stuff in pockets. Shooting vest with 10 pockets can hold 100 vs 300 rounds, entails the same reload time for 1/3 the lethality.

[Straw Man]

50. Shooting vest?

I have backed limiting magazine capacity. That way lethality would be limited by how many magazines a shooter can stuff in pockets. Shooting vest with 10 pockets can hold 100 vs 300 rounds, entails the same reload time for 1/3 the lethality.

How many ten-round magazines do you think you could fit in one of these?

https://www.frostriver.com/shop/shell-bag/

I'll bet it's a lot more than ten. Maybe we could pass a law that mass shooters can't carry shoulder bags. Yeah, that'll work.

[flamin lib]

54. *sigh* Another red herring. My example pointed out the differences in hi cap

vs low cap capability. Multiply by any number of pockets, bags or wheel barrow and the point stands. Smaller magazines means more reload time.

Wanna' know what will work? No semi auto guns with removable magazines. If you have to reload 30,50,100 rounds through the breech or in a tube you can have all the semi-auto ya' want.

I don't advocate for that because it's not a realistic goal.

I ask again how having unlimited firepower based solely on your physical strength to carry the ammunition makes anyone safer.

[Straw Man]

56. Wrong question.

I ask again how having unlimited firepower based solely on your physical strength to carry the ammunition makes anyone safer.

The question to ask is how it makes anyone significantly less safe. The answer is that it doesn't.

The red herring is all yours. Vests? Really?

[flamin lib]

59. Sorry but the laws of physics, logic and reason say limiting magazine capacity

does offer more opportunity to escape or to interfere with the shooter than high cap magazines. Otherwise why does the military have SAWs? More rounds to the target in less time is absolutely lore lethal than fewer.

If that weren't true why bother with mini guns? Just shoot one big bullet, right?

I ask again how having unlimited firepower based solely on your physical strength to carry the ammunition makes anyone safer.

I ask again, if 11 six year old children can escape a classroom while the shooter is changing mags, is it likely that more may have escaped if he changed mags 15 times instead of 5 times?

If Lognher had to change mags at 10 rounds instead of 30 is it likely that some of the 19 shot in AZ would not have been shot?

If you had to face an average shooter would you prefer a 30 round Glock or a six round S&W? Why?

I'd like answers to each of these questions please.

[gejohnston]

62. me personally?

does offer more opportunity to escape or to interfere with the shooter than high cap magazines. Otherwise why does the military have SAWs? More rounds to the target in less time is absolutely lore lethal than fewer.

suppressive fire, go get the other guy to hit the dirt while you advance.

If that weren't true why bother with mini guns? Just shoot one big bullet, right?

no

I ask again how having unlimited firepower based solely on your physical strength to carry the ammunition makes anyone safer.

there is no such thing as unlimited firepower

I ask again, if 11 six year old children can escape a classroom while the shooter is changing mags, is it likely that more may have escaped if he changed mags 15 times instead of 5 times?

We don't know why. We don't know the details of that. Since he did not empty any of his magazines, perhaps it had more to do with playing Call of Duty. We actually don't know if he acted alone or had co conspirators that split after he offed himself. The official investigation report is supposed to come out some time next month according to the DA and NPD.
http://digitaljournal.com/article/346711

If Lognher had to change mags at 10 rounds instead of 30 is it likely that some of the 19 shot in AZ would not have been shot?

probably, but not certain

If you had to face an average shooter would you prefer a 30 round Glock or a six round S&W? Why?

Depends. If he is firing the 30 round Glock on full auto, I would prefer that. If I'm hundred yards away, it doesn't matter. I would actually prefer him to have a six shot Clerke.
I'd like answers to each of these questions please.

[flamin lib]

66. Really reaching aren't we?

Suppressive fire the only reason for saws? Really? So a hundred round drum is only for suppressive fire? I still maintain and challenge anyone to dispute that more rounds on target is more leathal than fewer be they semi or full auto.

Mini gun vs one big round we seem to agree on lending credibility to large mags being more lethal.

Firepower limited only by physical strength to carry ammunition. Let us not change the context, okay?

That eleven kids escape Lanz was relayed by one of the children who made it out of the room. I anticipate your next move to be impugning the testimony of the child. The rest of that response was akin to the God of the Gaps: We don't know so I don't have to acknowledge that point of argument.

Loghner and reloading is at least a bit of honesty; Probably would have saved lives but then back to the God of the Gaps argument (which is no argument).

Finally I postulate a scenario similar to the Giffords shooting (30 round Glock or 6 shot S&W) and you pull a Komoroshi Moru by changing the proposition. "Well if this and if that and if I get to change the scenario . . ."

Ya gotta do better than this.

[gejohnston]

71. why not?

Suppressive fire the only reason for saws? Really? So a hundred round drum is only for suppressive fire? I still maintain and challenge anyone to dispute that more rounds on target is more leathal than fewer be they semi or full auto.

SAWs are belt fed and that is the purpose of any machine gun.

Mini gun vs one big round we seem to agree on lending credibility to large mags being more lethal.

No. A Ruger 10/22 with a 25 round mag is less lethal than a double barreled .45-70.

That eleven kids escape Lanz was relayed by one of the children who made it out of the room. I anticipate your next move to be impugning the testimony of the child. The rest of that response was akin to the God of the Gaps: We don't know so I don't have to acknowledge that point of argument.

I wasn't aware that the kids said any such thing, since I didn't see the interview. it's not like the media did an excellent job of covering it.

Loghner and reloading is at least a bit of honesty; Probably would have saved lives but then back to the God of the Gaps argument (which is no argument).

Finally I postulate a scenario similar to the Giffords shooting (30 round Glock or 6 shot S&W) and you pull a Komoroshi Moru by changing the proposition. "Well if this and if that and if I get to change the scenario . . ."

Well, why Glock and S and W?

[flamin lib]

73. It's been good and and it's been real but not really good for either of us.

Life is calling me elsewhere so I'm bowing out of the conversation for now.

Enjoyed the exchange. No minds changed here but there were some good swaps in both directions and I appreciate that you actually read the questions and answered them.

In answer to why Glock vs S&W; the Glock was Loghner's choice with a 30 rd mag. The point of the scenario was 30 rds vs 6. If hi capacity magazines aren't more lethal and limiting them would have no effect why would you care which your adversary had in hand? I was baiting you to admit that ammo capacity and reload speed is a factor in lethality and therefore a legitimate target for legislation (pun intended).

Finally I want to thank you for not making an issue of my miss-spelling "minutia". T'would have been low hanging fruit.

[Straw Man]

76. Answers

Sorry but the laws of physics, logic and reason say limiting magazine capacity

does offer more opportunity to escape or to interfere with the shooter than high cap magazines. Otherwise why does the military have SAWs? More rounds to the target in less time is absolutely lore lethal than fewer.

The "opportunity" is minimal. How far can one run in two seconds? Any pistol that doesn't have a magazine-disconnect safety -- which is many, many pistols -- can be fired while the magazine is being changed as long as the shooter changes magazines before he has run his gun empty. This is called a "tactical reload." Any brave fool who tries to rush a person armed with such a pistol will simply be shot at very close range.

More rounds to the target is obviously more lethal, but this is just as true in defensive scenarios as in offensive ones. Perhaps even more so, since in these spree killer incidents, the shooter is usually unopposed and has plenty of opportunity to change magazines. It is when lethal fire is being exchanged that the two seconds it takes to change magazines becomes crucial. The laws of physics, logic, and reason say so.

If that weren't true why bother with mini guns? Just shoot one big bullet, right?

"One big bullet" that explodes is an artillery shell, and it has its uses, just as a mini-gun does. Neither of these has any application as a defensive weapon, and nobody is asking for them to be legalized for civilian use.

I ask again how having unlimited firepower based solely on your physical strength to carry the ammunition makes anyone safer.

And again, I say that the onus is on you to say how it will make anyone significantly less safe. If you want to change the status quo, you must demonstrate pressing need. The fact remains that in the bulk of gun deaths, very few shots are fired. You're trying to base public policy on an extreme outlier scenario. Why is that?

I ask again, if 11 six year old children can escape a classroom while the shooter is changing mags, is it likely that more may have escaped if he changed mags 15 times instead of 5 times?

Unsubstantiated. See my post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172122757#post49

If Lognher had to change mags at 10 rounds instead of 30 is it likely that some of the 19 shot in AZ would not have been shot?

Oh, you want to play "what-if" games? OK, let's say Loughner had stood back from the crowd instead of charging into it. At ten yards or so, he would have had plenty of targets and plenty of time to reload from however many ten-round magazines he could have had in a shoulder bag. Take that same scenario and put a rifle into it. Even with ten-round magazines, the toll of dead and wounded would have been much higher.

If you had to face an average shooter would you prefer a 30 round Glock or a six round S&W? Why?

I would much prefer to have a Glock with a 30-round magazine, for obvious reasons. I wouldn't feel too bad with a 15-round magazine -- actually maybe better because 15-round magazines for a Glock 19 are time-tested and stone-cold reliable, but those 30-round monstrosities are jam-prone and unwieldy. But I would rather have any reliable magazine-fed semi-auto than a six-round revolver, which is slower and more difficult to reload, even with speed-loaders. All of this underscores the fact that magazine limits hamper self-defense efforts.

Or did you mean the armament my assailant would have? I would prefer he/she didn't have a weapon at all, obviously. At what distance is this encounter taking place? If it's face-to-face at arms length and I am unarmed, it's moot because I am dead. If we are both armed, just as obviously I want more ammunition than my assailant; it's my best chance of staying alive. Please remember that any magazine limit you place on law-abiding citizens will absolutely not be observed by criminals and mad killers. If there are any large-capacity magazines in existence, they will get them, no matter how illegal or expensive they are. If you think you can legislate out of existence an object that is nothing more than a metal box with a spring inside, you are sadly deluded.

I'd like answers to each of these questions please.

And I would like your response to each of my answers.

[rrneck]

57. Counting bullets.

Ever heard of a dump pouch? I'm on a phone or I'd Google it for you. A couple of those would hold dozens of pistol mags. Don't you think a hundred rounds is enough for a mass shooting?

And do you really think "clear field of fire" means "nobody in the vicinity?

But look at where this conversation has gone. Counting bullets. "Field of fire". How quickly some undefined person can run. It's an inane conversation that fosters an inane national debate that results in inane legislative proposals. Who profits from this?

[flamin lib]

61. Who does this damage?

Yeah, I've heard of a dump pouch. Also a wheel barrow. And a dump truck. What's yer point? Mine is more mags means more time reloading, more opportunity to fumble a reload, more opportunity to interfere with the shooter. When I make a point you wander off in some unrelated direction.

You postulated that a clear field of fire would not add to the possibility of collateral damage. The ONLY way a field of fire would bring no danger is if the field was so clear no-one was in it. Otherwise adding more guns to the situation would necessarily add more danger to bystanders. Simple logic really.

Eleven "undefined" six year old children ran fast enough to escape a classroom during a probably fumbled mag change. This is NOT inane. And it'd not going away. Lead, follow or get out of the way.

[rrneck]

67. How many children died that day?

How many is an acceptable number? How many will prove the legislation effective? Sounds ghoulish doesn't it? That's because it is.

Opportunity to fumble a reload, if somebody is close enough to exploit the opportunity, and brave enough to try, and lucky enough to succeed. That's some mighty wishful thinking upon which to base national legislation. And it reads like you're shooting craps to support a self serving agenda. It's hard ti win votes like that.

A clear field of fire means one possible target to hit, the ability to hit that target, and the wisdom to take advantage of the opportunity should it arise. Much like tackling an active shooter when he reloads. Why are supporting legislation to try to create one situation and not the other? They both look about the same to me.

[AtheistCrusader]

55. But yet

upthread you couldn't cite a case in which that happened. Just the 'Dollar Store' hostage/self defense shooting in which the hostage was killed. that sort of thing happens to cops too.

Otherwise, there are practically no examples of armed non-LEO responders shooting bystanders when engaging an active shooter.

Why isn't it happening?

[flamin lib]

63. Well, in some cases

the would be hero realizes that it isn't possible to engage without shooting a bystander and does the right thing by keeping his gun in his pants.

In some cases the would be hero reacts like a real person and puts self preservation above heroism and hides.

In some cases the would be hero forgot s/he had a gun.

In some cases the would be hero slipped on the brown pool at their feet and hurt themselves before they engaged.

In other "practically non existent cases" they shot the wrong person.

And finally in a very rare, extremely few cases, just enough to feed the fantasy, cases they actually succeed.

[AtheistCrusader]

64. I was with you on the first 3-4 items. I'm sure all of them happen.

On the last two, your assertion isn't backed up by any evidence you have raised so far.

[Straw Man]

49. Sorry.

I ask because while the Sandy Hook shooter was reloading once 11 terrified six year-old children escaped their classroom.

Is there any evidence to support that conjecture? The only surviving witnesses are the escapees themselves. Are you telling us that six-year-olds who were fleeing in absolute terror had the presence of mind to notice why he wasn't shooting as they fled? Do most six-year-olds even know what a magazine change is?

Was there even any eyewitness testimony from these children? This story has all the earmarks of a media fantasy.

[Straw Man]

77. Collateral damage?

Introducing another gun into a shootout cannot, under any conceivable circumstance,

lessen the possibility of collateral damage.

What about intentional damage? If someone is rampaging through a school and slaughtering students, would you risk collateral damage by shooting at that person, or would you stand down and let the killing continue unimpeded? Ask any police officer what he/she would do. Then give us an ethics-based explanation of why any capable citizen should do any less.

[Jenoch]

79. Saying Loughner was changing magazines

is not entirely accurate. His large capacity, non-standard magazine jammed. He probably had a stovepipe. He was changing magazines because of a malfunction, not like Cho or Lanza who chose when to change magazines. Who is to say that a bystander with a weapon could not have stopped Loughner after fewer than a just a couple people were shot and injured? We don't know either way.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

81. That's simple. Magic.

[ileus]

19. Don't you know....guns kill people!

Remember it's about CONTROL....not of the object but you as the citizen.

[bowens43]

31. mass murder isn't even the tip of the iceberg

only a very small percentage of gun deaths in this country have anything to do with mass murder. It's a smoke screen to cover the real problem, easy access to guns and ammo.

[rrneck]

33. Yes, that's another sack of taters. nt

[jeepnstein]

75. Not so easy these days...

I had to dig into my secret stash just to have enough test ammo to do my annual qualification. Since I carry a personally owned weapon I am required by the department to supply my own ammo. Ammo ain't easy these days.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

80. In this age...

...of relativity everything is generally relative but some things are a especially relative. For example, since time slows down for the shooter of massive numbers of bullets, an unarmed bystander can easily tackle him while he changes out that 7 round mag.

[rrneck]

96. Yep.

Howzit people can be so sure that the wrong person will get shot in an armed intervention (see "field of fire above), and yet don't think twice about sending somebody in there to get shot between the eyes because the killer understood the value of a tactical reload?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

97. I often find myself...

...in the awkward position of seeing points to both sides of this debate.

I understand wanting to improve the ratio of time spent shooting versus not shooting for some homicidal scum. What gets me is that conventional advice for an active shooter assault is to seek motion and distance. How does that mesh with tackling the bastard?

On the other hand, the more times a shooter has reload, the more chances he'll fumble, but I wouldn't want to rely on that as my defensive strategy.

[rrneck]

99. Lots of people suffer from tunel vision.

They want to ascribe a single cause to an event that will have a multitude of contributing factors. So while assailant efficiency is a factor, it is minor in relation to all the other things the shooter can control to make his mass murder a success. It makes no sense to propose legislation and all that entails to regulate shooter efficiency, especially when the legislation depends on the shooter making a mistake to work.

It might be possible to tackle an active shooter, but we can't legislate that opportunity any more than we can legislate an opportunity to shoot him by having the right gun owner in the right place at the right time.

[ileus]

93. shooting back is hateful, rude, and inconsiderate.

It's much better to be a victim...