Let's try this again, maybe this time someone can answer the question.

[rrneck]

17. It might well be argued

that those most likely to be spree killers are obsessive. If that's the case, they would be the most likely to practice, practice, practice. And like I mentioned above, even without practice it's not hard to switch mags very quickly.

Here's a test. Imagine you have just been shot at but missed. That means you will likely be at least crouched with your eyes closed facing the other way. Think you could turn around and cover twenty feet or so to disarm the assailant before he switches mags? And if he's smart, he won't shoot the gun dry, but leave one in the chamber for that hero who would try to rush him during the switch.

And that's just one scenario. It could go down a million different ways. The problem, as I see it, is that whatever legislation we pass to reduce the effectiveness of an assailant can be defeated with a tactical or strategic adjustment before the ink is dry. Take the Aurora shooting in that movie theater. As I recall, he entered through the emergency exit in front of the audience. The shooter's effectiveness wasn't the result of the weapon he carried. It was the fact that he stampeded the moviegoers into the exit aisles to get away from him. Think about it. He had a column of people clamoring to escape him, lined up in front of him, with their backs to him. He shouldn't have used an AR15 or a shotgun. A much more powerful deer rifle would have been better since it will shoot through two or three people at once. I believe in the Army they call it a kill zone.

Don't sweat it. This is an internet forum. We're all in over our heads here. Shit, that's what makes it fun.