- Role of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines: Assault weapons or high-capacity magazines were used in at least 12 of the incidents (28%). These incidents resulted in an average of 15.6 total people shot — 123% more people shot than in other incidents (7.0) and 8.3 deaths — 54% more deaths than in other incidents (5.4).SFDB comment: Assault weapons and high-capacity magazines are two pieces of weaponry that gun safety advocates are urging legislators to take off the market. While they are used in a statistically smaller number of mass shootings, when they are used, assault weapons and high-capacity magazines are involved in significantly more carnage and death.
- Gun-free zones: Nineteen of the 43 incidents (44%) took place in private residences. Of the 23 incidents in public spaces, at least 9 took place where concealed guns could be lawfully carried. All told, no more than 14 of the shootings (33%) took place in public spaces that were so-called “gun-free zones.”SFDB comment: Despite the claims by gun advocates that mass murders intentionally target "gun-free zones" because they know the chances of encountering someone who is armed is low, only in 1 of 3 shootings is that the case. In addition, many took place in private residences and of the ones that occurred in public places, many actually occurred in places where concealed guns could be carried.
The entire report is below....
.
14 comments:
1. "Assault weapons or high-capacity magazines were used in at least 12 of the incidents (28%)."
a. Interesting that they chose not to phrase it as "In the overwhelming majority of incidents, 72% of the time, assault weapons or high-capacity magazines were NOT involved".
b. Does the study ever define assault weapon or high-capacity magazines?
c. Does the study make any distinctions whatsoever between pistols and rifles? Don't you think that is important in light of Heller?
2. "SFDB comment: While they are used in a statistically smaller number of mass shootings, when they are used, assault weapons and high-capacity magazines are involved in significantly more carnage and death."
a. Significant? The study likes to inflate small numbers by using percentages (i.e. 2 is 100% greater than 1, but is still a small number), but it says that on average only 2.9 additional deaths. That's right, for all the huffing and puffing, 2.9 additional deaths over incidents involving no assault weapons or "high capacity" magazines.
b. With such a small sample size, only 40 something incidents, its fairly easy, mathematically, for just a handful of incidents to sway that average and make drawing any conclusions from it suspect.
3. What this study lacks, and what is seriously needed, is to look at each study and ask, would the choice of weapon and magazine capacity have made any difference? For example at Sandy Creek, is there any evidence that a pistol instead of a rifle would have made any difference, or that magazine capacity would have made any difference? I have not heard anybody argue that it would have changed anything.
4. Almost 40% of the incidents involved persons prohibited from firearms possession. Low hanging fruit anyone? Hasn't the NRA been screaming for years that federal and state governments have been wantonly negligent in enforcing existing laws? Too bad you fauxgressives refused to listen. Of course, when Obama proposes it, it's golden. Go figure.
"...is there any evidence that a pistol instead of a rifle would have made any difference, or that magazine capacity would have made any difference? I have not heard anybody argue that it would have changed anything."
Of course you have heard many people make that argument, it's the core reason for the proposed ban.
But what's interesting here is that if you, a gun advocate, believe that it doesn't matter what kind of gun or magazine is used in a mass murder event, then it should not matter what kind of gun you have in your house for "self defense" or how many bullets it holds. You can't argue out of both sides of your mouth.
Alex-
"But what's interesting here is that if you, a gun advocate, believe that it doesn't matter what kind of gun or magazine is used in a mass murder event, then it should not matter what kind of gun you have in your house for "self defense" or how many bullets it holds."
That is a really great argument, but flawed. The difference is being an attacker versus being a defender.
The attacker gets to prepare, i.e. he can simply bring along 3, 4, or a dozen magazines. The law abiding defender does not have the luxury of preparation, and can be attacked at any time, including times when carrying extra magazines isn't practical or possible, and probably by surprise.
"you have heard many people make that argument"
Well, true, but I've heard nobody support it with either theory or fact. I sh*t you not, I've talked to many people who thought high cap mags were bad because, literally, they did not know that magazines are removable from the gun and the next pre-loaded magazine can be swapped back in within a second or so. Once they understand the mechanics, they have no argument.
So following the logic in your response, it's more important to prevent an attacker from carrying a dozen high-capacity clips. Your typical -I would venture to say 99% of them, excluding the truly paranoid- defender won't have several high capacity clips loaded and ready at all times, or even get the chance to use them. Unless you are seriously going to argue that is more effective to spray and pray when defending one's home.
As far as the other argument, maybe it doesn't need to be supported with theory or fact. Maybe it is just that obvious that swapping a 30 round clip in an AK gives you three times the firepower than a typical 10 round clip, in the same time.
Bottom line, there's no real world justification for high capacity magazines, just like there isn't for full auto.
Alex-
You had a lot of promise but now you're not making sense.
"it's more important to prevent an attacker from carrying a dozen high-capacity clips"
a) I think it's more important to prevent attackers in the first place.
b) Maybe you don't understand simple math. The smaller you make the magazine capacity, the more magazines the attacker will carry to meet his ammo need. 12x10=120, which is still a lot of ammo for an attack.
"Your typical ... defender won't have several high capacity clips loaded and ready at all times, or even get the chance to use them."
Exactly! Which is why a defender has a greater need for a "high capacity" magazine than an attacker! The defender probably only has one magazine available when attacked!
"As far as the other argument, maybe it doesn't need to be supported with theory or fact."
You mean like Obama, or Santa Claus?
"Maybe it is just that obvious that swapping a 30 round clip in an AK gives you three times the firepower than a typical 10 round clip, in the same time."
Go to youtube and look for "Travis Tomasie magazine change" Actually on youtube you can see plenty of people doing *magazine* (clip is the wrong term) changes. It is true that it takes a second or two to swap out an empty magazine, but nothing convinces me that second will save anyone's life. To the contrary, it puts the lawful defender at a serious disadvantage when he doesn't have spare magazines immediately on hand!
"Bottom line, there's no real world justification for high capacity magazines,"
Then why do the police carry them? The most popular police handgun in the US, probably the world, is the Glock 17, with a 19+1 round capacity. Are the police stupid? Why aren't they just carrying their 6 round revolvers like the good 'ol days of the 1940s? Aren't the police responding (10-20 minutes after the fact) to the exact scenario that an armed citizen is going to encounter? Why shouldn't a homeowner have the same tools to deal with a home invasion that a policeman would have?
"just like there isn't for full auto."
New full auto mfg or import has been illegal for decades. Since the days of al capone can you name a mass shooting with full auto? You need to brush up on current law in order to intelligently participate in amending it.
Let's see how you are making sense:
Burdening an "attacker" with having to carry multiple clips (it is a correct term: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/clip) plus spend the time to reload is worse than giving him access to bigger capacity ones.
Homeowners defending their home routinely empty 20 bullet clips.
"Obvious" is the same as "irrationally hated" or "fantasy character".
Police and civilians always encounter the same exact scenarios and need the same equipment. As we all know that armed citizens bust organized crime operations 15 to 20 minutes before the police all the time.
BTW, I know full auto is illegal. I was merely making a comparison. Maybe I should have said "...just like there isn't for M1 Abrams tanks." so you could intelligently comprehend.
Alex-
1. Magazines: I understand what you are saying. You are saying that it is better to make an attacker have to carry 3 10-round magazines than 1 30-round magazine. I understand that logic. But you're ignoring my response. The burden you put on the attacker is minimal in that case because a) he can swap magazines quickly and b) he gets to plan ahead. He can kill just as many people as he wants by buying more magazines. They are small and lightweight. The lawful gun owner is at a disadvantage because most likely he will only be able to rely on the magazine actually in the gun at the time he is attacked.
In fact, there is a small flaw in your logic in that magazines sometimes jam up, and if you force the killer to have spares you will be killing more people than if he only has one and it jams. Granted that may be rare, but so are the mass shootings!
2. "we all know that armed citizens bust organized crime operations"
I have news for you, you typical beat cop never gets in a gunfight or busts al copone. If your average cop does get in a gunfight, it is exactly the kind of scenario a civilian faces.
3. A clip holds bullets but does not have a spring (think a pez refill). A magazine has a spring (think a pez dispenser). A clip is used to fill a magazine. The AR-15 uses an external magazine. The M1 uses a clip to fill an internal magazine. I know many people misuse the terms, but you are wrong.
http://www.gunsandammo.com/2012/03/07/whats-in-a-name-common-gun-term-mistakes/
Now normally I do not correct people on Rick's blog about this, but since you pretend to act like you know anything about firearms, you would not be making such a newb mistake if you actually did.
You keep getting entangled in your own horse's legs. If clips (Webster and common usage says you're wrong) are small and lightweight, they your "attacker" would be able to carry 3 clips of 30 just as easily as 3 clips of 10. Triple the firepower. That's simple math. Your "attacker" bent on mass murder needs it. Your "defender" doesn't, unless he wants to transform his home in a war zone.
Come on. Show me one expert who recommends a semiauto with a large capacity magazine as the ideal home defense gun. You know very well the real reason to have those for most people is "because I want to" and "it looks cool at the range". And for your "attackers" it's because "I need to kill as many pople as possible".
Any reasonable person looks at the shootings in the study by number of victims and can see the ones that killed more people used either a rifle or a high capacity clip. More ammo = more firepower = more dead. Gun fanatics would do better by trying to act more like reasonable people.
"Come on. Show me one expert who recommends a semiauto with a large capacity magazine as the ideal home defense gun."
Google with terms like Glock 17 or Glock 19 and "home defense" and you'll find a bizillion people recommend it for that use. The Glock 17 holds 19+1 with standard factory mags, the 19 15+1 with standard factory mags. Those two together are probably the most commonly owned handgun in the US. You would know that if you actually knew anything about guns and didn't just rely on Meriam Webster and Wikipedia.
"You know very well the real reason to have those"
Is for lawful self-defense.
"Any reasonable person looks at the shootings in the study by number of victims and can see the ones that killed more people used either a rifle or a high capacity clip. More ammo = more firepower = more dead."
I replied in my very first post that that statistics showed an additional 2.9 dead per incident. Not an additional 29, 2.9. I also argue that its a very small sample size, and there is nothing to suggest that other incidents would not have been smaller or bigger if the weapons were different. One of the questions to ask about each even is, "why did the shooter stop?"
Unless the answer was "he ran out of ammo" then your magazine arguments are not very persuasive. How many incidents ended solely because the shooter ran out of ammo? Can you answer that Alex?
"Gun fanatics would do better by trying to act more like reasonable people."
Yep, you really seem like you want a reasonable debate when you call me a "fanatic".
Now go read Webster's dictionary to learn more about the real world, child.
do you have to be a d*ck to everyone, jewish marksman?
Anon-
I don't see you stepping in when I'm called all kinds of names. Alex's "fanatic" is just the tip of the ice berg on this blog.
So until you start policing all names I'm called here, including being falsely accused of being a liar by Rick, then this Jew will hit back.
Ess, bench, sei a mensch!
"Ess, bench, sei a mensch!"
I agree, aber auch לעולם לא עוד
Let me disabuse you of the notion that I expect a rational debate from you, JM. That's what "trying to act more like reasonable people"means.
It's unreasonable to say with a straight face that every yahoo at the range with an AK owns it for self-defense and not for kicks.
It's unreasonable to keep repeating that 2.9 deaths -and more than double the amount of people shot (15.6 vs. 7) something that you conveniently neglect to say– aren't relevant.
It's unreasonable -and laughable- to reduce the argument to "ran out of ammo", when the whole point is to reduce the amount of ammo in the killer's hands in the first place.
And it's extremely unreasonable to antagonize people by not giving an inch to reason and refusing to compromise. Don't get me wrong, I think this attitude is fantastic. We'll get to common sense regulations faster by ignoring the fanatics than by negotiating with them.
Post a Comment
Spam, vulgar language, trolling and off-topic comments are not tolerated at SFDB and your comment will be removed if it meets this criteria.