Absurdity Of Magazine Bans

Rucker61 said:

So the number of victims weren't reduced? Not so good for the last victims.

Click to expand...

The potential number was definitely reduced in some of those shootings. I'm not debating theory here but putting forth what actually happened - people escaped during reloads. In some cases they overpowered the shooter. Both of these almost certainly prevented further people being killed or injured: this is not wild speculation.

Rucker61 said:

People get away when the shooter decides to stop shooting, and that's typically when armed resistance shows up.

Click to expand...

Despite the fact that I've posted cases where people got away because the shooter was preoccupied with loading, or where the shooter was overpowered while distracted by reloading.

I'm sorry but a typical loser incel trench coat wearer is not so awesome that they hit everyone they aim at, reload so fast nobody gets away, and only ends the massacre when they decide. They're not that good. It has already been aptly - and forensically - demonstrated that reload times are just one factor that works in the victims' favor.

uptower said:

Despite the fact that I've posted cases where people got away because the shooter was preoccupied with loading, or where the shooter was overpowered while distracted by reloading.

Click to expand...

California bar shooting:

""I ran out the front door…I hear chairs being thrown out the window, people were trying to get out the window and the gunman went to the, he went behind the cash register...there was probably 12 shots before I got out the front door," John said.
"He reloaded and then just kept on popping them off," said Tim, John's stepdad. He said he regrets not staying in the bar to help other victims. "

There was no reduction in the number of lives lost. The shooter just shot other victims once some ran out. Nothing in this statement attributes his escape to reloading.

SPU Shooting:

"Ybarra arrived at SPU in a white pickup truck and parked on the street. He exited the truck with a Browning over-under shotgun, a large fixed blade hunting knife and additional live shotgun rounds."
"The gunman was stopped by student Jon Meis, who used pepper spray to disarm the gunman".

I'm sorry but a typical loser incel trench coat wearer is not so awesome that they hit everyone they aim at, reload so fast nobody gets away, and only ends the massacre when they decide. They're not that good. It has already been aptly - and forensically - demonstrated that reload times are just one factor that works in the victims' favor.

Click to expand...

Here's a question. If you firmly believe that magazine restrictions lead to increased chances of victims escaping from an active shooter, why are you against restrictions?

Rucker61 said:

There was no reduction in the number of lives lost. The shooter just shot other victims once some ran out. Nothing in this statement attributes his escape to reloading.

Click to expand...

Cherry picking one person who didn't mention a reload does not mean others didn't escape when it happened, especially not when a simple google search shows that is a very common window of time for mass shooting survivors to exploit.

Calif. bar shooting: Witnesses describe escaping as gunman reloaded

Thousand Oaks Shooting Survivors Escaped Through Windows While Gunman Reloaded | HuffPost

Sandy Hook Shooter's Pause May Have Aided Students' Escape - Courant Community

Weapon Malfunctions in an Active Shooter Event- by Greg Ellifritz - Saddle River Range

The Florida gunman's AR-15 reportedly jammed during the shooting, and he had 180 more rounds left | Business Insider

Translation: any pause in firing offers a window of opportunity

Rucker61 said:

Here's a question. If you firmly believe that magazine restrictions lead to increased chances of victims escaping from an active shooter, why are you against restrictions?

Click to expand...

That one's easy - magazine bans won't stop mass shooting. They might make them less deadly, but will not prevent mass shooters from trying. As others have argued the solution there seems to be more in mental health monitoring and making sure guns do not fall into the wrong hands.

Bear in mind I was only arguing against the unscientific claim that lower magazine capacities do not reduce potential casualties. It has been aptly demonstrated that when shooters reload people react (or those already reacting have a better chance): the logical conclusion being more reloads equal more chances. I am arguing against that claim not because I am anti 1st Amendment or want to see lower-cap magazines, but because I am against emotive arguments that deny stats, science, facts, experience and common sense in order to push an agenda. I like to see intellectual honesty in a debate, whether it serves me or the opposition.

uptower said:

Cherry picking one person who didn't mention a reload does not mean others didn't escape when it happened, especially not when a simple google search shows that is a very common window of time for mass shooting survivors to exploit.

Calif. bar shooting: Witnesses describe escaping as gunman reloaded

Thousand Oaks Shooting Survivors Escaped Through Windows While Gunman Reloaded | HuffPost

Sandy Hook Shooter's Pause May Have Aided Students' Escape - Courant Community

Weapon Malfunctions in an Active Shooter Event- by Greg Ellifritz - Saddle River Range

The Florida gunman's AR-15 reportedly jammed during the shooting, and he had 180 more rounds left | Business Insider

Translation: any pause in firing offers a window of opportunity



That one's easy - magazine bans won't stop mass shooting. They might make them less deadly, but will not prevent mass shooters from trying. As others have argued the solution there seems to be more in mental health monitoring and making sure guns do not fall into the wrong hands.

Bear in mind I was only arguing against the unscientific claim that lower magazine capacities do not reduce potential casualties. It has been aptly demonstrated that when shooters reload people react (or those already reacting have a better chance): the logical conclusion being more reloads equal more chances. I am arguing against that claim not because I am anti 1st Amendment or want to see lower-cap magazines, but because I am against emotive arguments that deny stats, science, facts, experience and common sense in order to push an agenda. I like to see intellectual honesty in a debate, whether it serves me or the opposition.

Click to expand...

your logic demands you want to limit all honest people to one shot only firearms

ryzorsden said:

There's actually some real logical benefits to banning high capacity magazines.

In a firefight, one of the keys to winning the firefight that is longer than most (30+ seconds) is to wait for your opponent to reload. If he has an AR-15 with a 100-round drum (like in Aurora), you're gunna have to wait longer, and he has more of a chance to shoot you.

Microseconds make a different in a firefight. Most cops don't want to face off against and opponent that has more than 10 rounds per magazine.

It's logical. But clearly beyond conservative thinking....

Click to expand...

The Aurora shooter didnt empty his 100 round drum because it malfunctioned. He instead switched to a standard capacity pistol and shotgun, which he reloaded several times.

Rucker61 said:

People get away when the shooter decides to stop shooting, and that's typically when armed resistance shows up.

Click to expand...

True, because tragically there are still a shortage of responsible concealed carriers in the public sector.

uptower said:

Cherry picking one person who didn't mention a reload does not mean others didn't escape when it happened, especially not when a simple google search shows that is a very common window of time for mass shooting survivors to exploit.

Calif. bar shooting: Witnesses describe escaping as gunman reloaded

Thousand Oaks Shooting Survivors Escaped Through Windows While Gunman Reloaded | HuffPost

Sandy Hook Shooter's Pause May Have Aided Students' Escape - Courant Community

Weapon Malfunctions in an Active Shooter Event- by Greg Ellifritz - Saddle River Range

The Florida gunman's AR-15 reportedly jammed during the shooting, and he had 180 more rounds left | Business Insider

Translation: any pause in firing offers a window of opportunity



That one's easy - magazine bans won't stop mass shooting. They might make them less deadly, but will not prevent mass shooters from trying. As others have argued the solution there seems to be more in mental health monitoring and making sure guns do not fall into the wrong hands.

Bear in mind I was only arguing against the unscientific claim that lower magazine capacities do not reduce potential casualties. It has been aptly demonstrated that when shooters reload people react (or those already reacting have a better chance): the logical conclusion being more reloads equal more chances. I am arguing against that claim not because I am anti 1st Amendment or want to see lower-cap magazines, but because I am against emotive arguments that deny stats, science, facts, experience and common sense in order to push an agenda. I like to see intellectual honesty in a debate, whether it serves me or the opposition.

Click to expand...

As long as there are still other potential victims who didn't escape, the claim that lower magazine capacity and more frequent reloads reduces potential casualties isn't a scientifically supported claim.

And there's no support that a grandfathered capacity restriction does anything to reduce the availability of larger capacity magazines to those who wish to use them in mass shootings, either.

Edit: I wasn't cherry picking - I was critiquing the two examples that you chose to support your position.

VanceMack said:

The Aurora shooter didnt empty his 100 round drum because it malfunctioned. He instead switched to a standard capacity pistol and shotgun, which he reloaded several times.

Click to expand...

gun banners never are able to explain why a magazine limit is more likely to limit the magazine capacity in a firearm used by someone intent on committing serious felonies than someone who will merely be defending against a violent criminal attack.

uptower said:

Look seriously, the fact is people get away in mass shootings when there is a lull in the firing.

Click to expand...

Name the specific incident you're citing here because it sure wasn't either of my examples.

TurtleDude said:

gun banners never are able to explain why a magazine limit is more likely to limit the magazine capacity in a firearm used by someone intent on committing serious felonies than someone who will merely be defending against a violent criminal attack.

Click to expand...

And they ignore reality. They do so because they know the anti-gun people that worship them will just regurgitate the same **** without thinking. The VA Tech shooter used standard cap magazines. The Columbine shooters "AR" was actually a 9 round Hi Point Carbine chambered in 9 MM. The Parkland Shooter used 10 round mags. Hell...Adam Lanza in Sandy Hook could have hand loaded rounds...it wouldnt have mattered because there was no armed response in the school and the police didnt breach for 20 minutes...8 minutes after the last shot was fired.

And lest anyone forget...the 2nd Amendment specifically protects 'the peoples' right to combat arms...and that means high cap magazines.

VanceMack said:

And they ignore reality. They do so because they know the anti-gun people that worship them will just regurgitate the same **** without thinking. The VA Tech shooter used standard cap magazines. The Columbine shooters "AR" was actually a 9 round Hi Point Carbine chambered in 9 MM. The Parkland Shooter used 10 round mags. Hell...Adam Lanza in Sandy Hook could have hand loaded rounds...it wouldnt have mattered because there was no armed response in the school and the police didnt breach for 20 minutes...8 minutes after the last shot was fired.

And lest anyone forget...the 2nd Amendment specifically protects 'the peoples' right to combat arms...and that means high cap magazines.

Click to expand...

The magazine schemes are the best proof of the incremental nature of the creeping crud of confiscation. New York proved that

The reason why gun banners never ever address this question-why do they think their proposed laws will more likely disarm violent felons than honest citizens is because of this

THEY DO NOT see any value in honest citizens being able to defend against criminals. SO they do not consider the cost of a law that is more likely to disarm or handicap an honest person over a criminal.

TurtleDude said:

your logic demands you want to limit all honest people to one shot only firearms

Click to expand...

I don't see how. Guess it's not what I want.

Rucker61 said:

As long as there are still other potential victims who didn't escape, the claim that lower magazine capacity and more frequent reloads reduces potential casualties isn't a scientifically supported claim.

And there's no support that a grandfathered capacity restriction does anything to reduce the availability of larger capacity magazines to those who wish to use them in mass shootings, either.

Edit: I wasn't cherry picking - I was critiquing the two examples that you chose to support your position.

Click to expand...

Well if we're going to critique:

2014- Pacific University in Seattle, Washington– Student safety monitor stopped the shooter by spraying him with pepper spray as he reloaded his double barrel shotgun. Suspect tried to continue his attack with a knife while being restrained.

Maybe read the articles in future.

Wayne Jr said:

Name the specific incident you're citing here because it sure wasn't either of my examples.

Click to expand...

Specific incidents were named in all of my examples. Go back and look at the links.

Survivors either had the chance to run or to overpower the shooter when the gun stopped for reloads or stoppages.

uptower said:

Specific incidents were named in all of my examples. Go back and look at the links.

Click to expand...

Sorry, it's easy to miss posts that aren't addressed to me as I don't read the entire thread, of any thread, but rely on the Notifications system. I'll go back and have a look.

Your first example, the CA bar shooting: CA already has a magazine capacity limit for pistols: 10rnds, which I believe you've said is the same limitation you want to impose on other states. It was reported that the gun used was a 45cal Glock, and the largest California-legal Glock in 45cal that I could find is the Glock 30.

If the gun had, say, 15rds, the same people would have just had to sit behind cover for another 2-3 seconds before running when the shooter stopped to reload. The outcome would be the same.

• The shooter bought his gun legally from an FFL, passing the background check, proving that gun control does not work.
• The shooter used a 10rnd mag, proving gun control does not work.
• The shooter used a gun on CA's 'approved gun list', proving gun control does not work.
• The shooter did not have a carry permit, proving gun control does not work.
• Bars are no-gun zones in CA, proving gun control does not work.
• The shooter performed murder, proving gun control does not work.

Crime is a socio-economic and healthcare problem, not a gun problem.

Wayne Jr said:

Sorry, it's easy to miss posts that aren't addressed to me as I don't read the entire thread, of any thread, but rely on the Notifications system. I'll go back and have a look.

Click to expand...

In fairness it may not have been a direct response to one of your posts.

Wayne Jr said:

Your first example, the CA bar shooting: CA already has a magazine capacity limit for pistols: 10rnds, which I believe you've said is the same limitation you want to impose on other states.

Click to expand...

No, I have no recommendation for magazine limits.

Wayne Jr said:

If the gun had, say, 15rds, the same people would have just had to sit behind cover for another 2-3 seconds before running when the shooter stopped to reload. The outcome would be the same.

Click to expand...

The fact is people got away during reloading. The more there is, the more chance for escape. This is basically physics of the time space variety. More time equals more space. In this case space to act.

Wayne Jr said:

Crime is a socio-economic and healthcare problem, not a gun problem.

Click to expand...

On that we agree. I only disputed the narrow illogic that a smaller magazine would not reduce the damage in a mass shooting. Well based on the rather obvious premise that less ammo equals more reloads, and the established fact that people escape during reloads, anyone could easily deduce that more reloads means more opportunities for survivors. Indeed reports are rife of just that occurrance.

On the subject of whether clips should be reduced in size, I do not think that will stop massacres. It will make some less deadly, but as you've mentioned, will not hit the root of the problem.

So as an excuse to reduce magazine capacities, the mathematical logic is sound. As to whether doing so will solve the problem, it will not. But my only interest - apart from having fun with terminology - was dealing in facts and not emotions. To me it is absurd to deny the true stories that show people escape mass shooters who are busy reloading, just because the opposition is using that as an excuse to reduce magazine sizes. I agree it is a gateway to more bans and I don't want to force gun owners to reduce their magazine capacities for half measures. But equally denying some basic facts does not do the question justice.

uptower said:

In fairness it may not have been a direct response to one of your posts.



No, I have no recommendation for magazine limits.



The fact is people got away during reloading. The more there is, the more chance for escape. This is basically physics of the time space variety. More time equals more space. In this case space to act.



On that we agree. I only disputed the narrow illogic that a smaller magazine would not reduce the damage in a mass shooting. Well based on the rather obvious premise that less ammo equals more reloads, and the established fact that people escape during reloads, anyone could easily deduce that more reloads means more opportunities for survivors. Indeed reports are rife of just that occurrance.

On the subject of whether clips should be reduced in size, I do not think that will stop massacres. It will make some less deadly, but as you've mentioned, will not hit the root of the problem.

So as an excuse to reduce magazine capacities, the mathematical logic is sound. As to whether doing so will solve the problem, it will not. But my only interest - apart from having fun with terminology - was dealing in facts and not emotions. To me it is absurd to deny the true stories that show people escape mass shooters who are busy reloading, just because the opposition is using that as an excuse to reduce magazine sizes. I agree it is a gateway to more bans and I don't want to force gun owners to reduce their magazine capacities for half measures. But equally denying some basic facts does not do the question justice.

Click to expand...

The thing I don't like about your argument in favor of forcing more reloding times during a mass shooting, is that your argument allows for the mass shooting in the first place.

I'm only interested in stopping the mass shooting. That means 1. preventing it in the first place with sound fiscal policy and heathcare, and 2. giving the potential victims everything to defend themselves which must include higher capacity magaziens.

Wayne Jr said:

The thing I don't like about your argument in favor of forcing more reloading times during a mass shooting, is that your argument allows for the mass shooting in the first place.

Click to expand...

No I was only concerned with the logical fallacy that a smaller magazine wouldn't change anything. It does not stop mass shootings and like you said, I too would like to see more done in that area.

But the logic that such massacres might be less devastating with smaller ammo capacities, is demonstrably true and gun owners shouldn't be triggered by the obvious just because it comes from 'the other side'.

As for 'forcing mass shooters to reload more', it's not their rights I am concerned with. I'd force them to eat their own sh!t as well. And mine.

uptower said:

But the logic that such massacres might be less devastating with smaller ammo capacities, is demonstrably true and gun owners shouldn't be triggered by the obvious just because it comes from 'the other side'.

Click to expand...

I experience a lot of this as well whenever I express an openness to mandatory waiting periods to reduce suicide. It's a kind of kicked dog syndrome. There are far more people looking to undermine the RKBA then there are people looking to add just a few policies and stop there. The issue is very polarized but only anti-gun is willing to use lethal force to get its way, so anti-gun are the winners in the long run whether that's right or wrong.

Wayne Jr said:

I experience a lot of this as well whenever I express an openness to mandatory waiting periods to reduce suicide. It's a kind of kicked dog syndrome. There are far more people looking to undermine the RKBA then there are people looking to add just a few policies and stop there. The issue is very polarized but only anti-gun is willing to use lethal force to get its way, so anti-gun are the winners in the long run whether that's right or wrong.

Click to expand...

I oppose waiting periods in the hopes of reducing suicides primarily because I'm not willing to give the government any more power than authorized by the Constitution. I also know that studies on waiting periods don't show any significant effect on the overall suicide rate, nor does a waiting period have any effect on those who already own at least one firearm.

I'm also concerned that given the power, there's no checks and balances on those imposed that waiting period with regard to length of waiting period. If a period of "x" days saves "y" lives, then a waiting period longer than "x" saves more lives than "x" days and should be better, right?

With regards to magazine limits, the data is not conclusive no matter what one poster insists, nor would a law limiting capacity necessarily even jave an effect on a shooter who obviously has no concern for the law.

Rucker61 said:

I oppose waiting periods in the hopes of reducing suicides primarily because I'm not willing to give the government any more power than authorized by the Constitution. I also know that studies on waiting periods don't show any significant effect on the overall suicide rate, nor does a waiting period have any effect on those who already own at least one firearm.

Click to expand...

That post was about resistance, not waiting periods.

Rucker61 said:

I'm also concerned that given the power, there's no checks and balances on those imposed that waiting period with regard to length of waiting period. If a period of "x" days saves "y" lives, then a waiting period longer than "x" saves more lives than "x" days and should be better, right?

Click to expand...

We don't know. More research is needed. I said I was open to looking into it, not that I supported it. Huge difference you just glossed right over so you could oppose it, which is exactly what I was talking about. Anyway don't worry about some guy on a forum being open to waiting periods, Ohio came very close to outright banning semi-auto pistols and raising the age to buy long guns to 21 this week.

Wayne Jr said:

That post was about resistance, not waiting periods.


We don't know. More research is needed. I said I was open to looking into it, not that I supported it. Huge difference you just glossed right over so you could oppose it, which is exactly what I was talking about. Anyway don't worry about some guy on a forum being open to waiting periods, Ohio came very close to outright banning semi-auto pistols and raising the age to buy long guns to 21 this week.

Click to expand...

No it didn't

Wayne Jr said:

We don't know. More research is needed. I said I was open to looking into it, not that I supported it. Huge difference you just glossed right over so you could oppose it, which is exactly what I was talking about. Anyway don't worry about some guy on a forum being open to waiting periods, Ohio came very close to outright banning semi-auto pistols and raising the age to buy long guns to 21 this week.

Click to expand...

Do you think that ban would have withstood SCOTUS scrutiny?