Question concerning large volume clips/magazines

[blueboss]

I don't want to waste anyone's time on this forum and I know there have been vast discussions concerning gun control and everything that revolves round the sale of guns/ammo after the Newtown tragedy. I have read many of the thoughts and beliefs on other threads concerning this debate, and I don't pretend to be as well versed as a lot of the other posters, I have seen a lot of media debate on making high volume clips/magazines unavailable/illegal to minimize the number of victims when some whack job goes off for whatever reason, but my basic question is this:

Specifically in the matter of the Newtown tragedy which has thrown a lot of gas on the gun debate fire would the number of bullets in gun would have really mattered? How long does it actually take to drop an eight or nine shot clip and slam another one in, and if no one is shooting back at you what does it really matter? In most of the mass shootings it really wouldn't have mattered if the shooter had larger clips he would have just had to have more clips. These people that go on these sprees are set on killing people and have spent a lot of time planning them and limiting the size of the magazine more than likely would not deter anyone from carrying out their heinous crimes. When these people realize that there is the distinct possibility that someone will be returning fire rather quickly after their first shot they might think twice about making headlines and just take the easy way out with one bullet.

To me the real issue is limiting weapons to those who may be or become unstable, if guns are eliminated those determined to go on a spree will have to resort to less sensational methods of making a sick legacy by using a truck/car into a crowded street or gathering. The point is those who are in such a state of mind that they want to create carnage to gain attention are going to find a way regardless.

Sorry, in lieu of all of the discussions and debates my thoughts may seem shallow or basic but all I"m hearing from the media and law makers doesn't really seem to make any sense in solving the real issues and I figured I would just throw it out there.

[CitizenBBN]

blueboss, great post and there is no reason to think that b/c you aren't an expert you shouldn't post or ask questions. Most of all know none of us are experts.

I have hoped the discussion would involve those who aren't as experienced with guns or gun issues. I think the media has put out so many misconceptions and simplifications that confuse the issue and keep us from making good policy that might really help stop these horrors.

Your question goes right to the heart of it. Most people experienced with these kinds of guns will tell you they can change out magazines so fast it would make no difference in these scenarios. As you pointed out, it's not like they have dodge bullets, and in Newtown it's unlikely he was going to be rushed and stopped. In Aurora his rifle jammed and still wasn't rushed.

For an AR change or AK change you're looking at 3-4 seconds if you're practiced at it. Of course if you bring more than one gun that's not a problem. I can guarantee bringing multiple handguns would cause just the same damage, as would shotguns.

I agree if we are to try to respond to the gun at all we have to focus on who gets them b/c the type of gun isn't going to yield any useful results, and IMO be very careful what we deny to those who aren't a risk.

That's their problem. The next lunatic can as you point out no doubt kill dozens with the weapons they intend to not regulate, and then what do we do? We've reduced the rights of Americans just to be back in the exact same place facing the same nightmare and the same options the next time.

There are things we can do, both relating to guns and otherwise dealing with the broader problem of people in our country desiring to go kill as many innocent people as possible before they die. Unfortunately these proposals totally derail those efforts to focus on things that will make no difference.

One thing we could do right now is address your point about someone shooting back at them and add the same security to schools we've added to court houses to protect judges and civil servants.

Every shooting in the modern era that killed more than 3 people except 1 was in a "gun free zone." I think we can safely assume from the data you are right, telling lunatics where they won't be fired upon isn't helping keep those places safe, it's making them easy targets.

There's a reason they aren't walking into police stations. They want to kill as many as possible, and even in lunacy they know that means going to a place where they can find the most unarmed innocent victims possible. They kill till the police show up then kill themselves. IMO you're on the money and the numbers back it up.

I think your questions are excellent b/c what the media is pitching isn't addressing whether any of these ideas will actually work, and isn't that the key part of the discussion?


here's the video, takes him 3-4 seconds. A 2nd one shows it even faster b/c he pulls it from a pouch and not standard military gear.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-6jXQ3FE4o


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksZqzPWm7VQ

[CattyWampus]

Here's a video that shows just how fast someone can empty a revolver, reload, and empty it again.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uisHfKj2JiI

[Darrell KSR]

Here's a video that shows just how fast someone can empty a revolver, reload, and empty it again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uisHfKj2JiI
3-
That's amazingly fast, but I think that guy is exceptional. Less than 3 seconds to fire every bullet, then reload, then fire every bullet again? Not many can do that with a revolver, and it scared me thinking of people trying to do it, as he seemed to be almost firing near-simultaneously with reloading.

Still, here's a basic reload of a Glock semiautomatic pistol, without even dropping the magazine. It doesn't take 3 to 4 seconds to do it. I fiddle around with mine a little and it doesn't take me that long, and I'm not even a "gun" person.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCVLIj7yEhI

[Darrell KSR]

By the way--want to see something amazing? OK, maybe it's not amazing to you guys--but this is a guy shooting a Glock 19 SEMIautomatic. You'll swear it's automatic if you're a gun novice like me.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgoQ_7T47ig

[KeithKSR]

Cowboy action shooters can fire revolvers, shotguns and lever actions quicker than most of those involved in mass murders, and with much greater accuracy.

[blueboss]

Hopefully none of these guys will decide to go on a rampage, but they are classic examples of my point. These guys have trained for a long time to be able to exercise such quickness and the average person with very little training while they can't get even close to that quickness but what about 3x slower 6 seconds. During one of these events most people will be running the other way or trying to hide offering ample opportunity to reload or pull a fresh weapon already loaded.

It's sad that we should have to even think of armed guards in places like elementary schools but with the possibility of someone shooting back it would all but eliminate spineless bad guys for entering a school to do harm. These armed security guards don't necessarily need to decked in para-military camo garb freaking young minds out but a secret service type presence with security dressed in sportcoats or such would not reek of a police state. In time kids would even forget their presence and would have confidence knowing that there is a protective presence.

[CitizenBBN]

Hopefully none of these guys will decide to go on a rampage, but they are classic examples of my point. These guys have trained for a long time to be able to exercise such quickness and the average person with very little training while they can't get even close to that quickness but what about 3x slower 6 seconds. During one of these events most people will be running the other way or trying to hide offering ample opportunity to reload or pull a fresh weapon already loaded.

It's sad that we should have to even think of armed guards in places like elementary schools but with the possibility of someone shooting back it would all but eliminate spineless bad guys for entering a school to do harm. These armed security guards don't necessarily need to decked in para-military camo garb freaking young minds out but a secret service type presence with security dressed in sportcoats or such would not reek of a police state. In time kids would even forget their presence and would have confidence knowing that there is a protective presence.

Agree with every word.

You pray no one goes nuts and does something horrible like this. the only good news is that with 300 million people in the US we have at most a few per year and often none in a year that do so. Honestly given the strains of modern society I'm surprised it's that low in any country.

It's also sad we need that security, but I look at it as the same as it being sad we had to start controlling kids leaving school and getting in cars. My grandmother would come pick me up sometimes instead of the bus and it was no big deal. I'd tell the teacher or bus driver, they wanted to know where you went, but no one checked her ID or required something be on file. I told them "that's my grandmother" and that was that.

so it's a loss of innocence, but I like your idea of plain clothes security and our children lost that innocence over things totally unrelated to guns long ago. I see it as a very small step compared to grandparents having to get written pre-filed approval from a parent with proof of legal custody to pick up their grandkids from school.

that solution works. It can stop these people, still the only thing proposed that has any hope of meeting the claimed goal of these groups.

[KeithKSR]

Nothing at all wrong with armed guards, particularly police officers, being in our schools. Aside from the safety factor these people serve as role models for American children, and also teach children that law enforcement officials are their friends and not bad people to be feared. When I worked in an elementary school we had police officers in our school as DARE officers to teach kids about the dangers of drugs and alcohol. My kids participated in these programs and it never concerned me that these armed individuals were in their classrooms. As a middle school teacher we had a school resource officer in our school, for several years, until funding cuts caused us to lose the officer. A school resource officer was instrumental in preventing our school from being one of those schools that is among those listed with slayings. I've had KSP troopers in my classroom as part of a short lived DARE program targeting middle school kids.

This may shock those anti-gun folks, but more than half of my students use firearms, participating in activities like deer hunting. This is not limited by gender, as both boys and girls alike hunt whitetail.

One note of extreme interest here, colleagues that here to fore did not own firearms are now preparing to purchase and get their concealed carry permits before Congress can act to curb gun ownership.

[CitizenBBN]

Keith the biggest irony of all is that all of these gun control pushes are creating a LOT, millions, of new gun owners. Not just gun sales to existing owners, but brand new people getting guns and carry permits and even ammo. A lot of them are women.

For so many thinking guns aren't the answer there seem to be a bunch who disagree even among those who aren't owners. The American people are a lot more on the pro-gun side than the anti-gun side if we had to draw a line down the middle.

None of them has any faith the government can protect them from criminals and these lunatics and all think if we get rid of guns it only gives the criminals free reign so they'd better get in under the wire so they can protect themselves.

[KeithKSR]

Chuck, saw a stat a while back that the largest growing segment of gun owners is soccer moms.

[CitizenBBN]

Chuck, saw a stat a while back that the largest growing segment of gun owners is soccer moms.

I'd be very surprised if that weren't the case. Almost every person who would be a "new gun owner" in class, not just new handgun or carry owner but new owner of any gun, is a woman and of all ages but a lot in that age range. Had one saturday who came with her dad to get it, hadn't shot a pistol before. She's a professional, married with 2 kids.

Also a lot of couples, maybe a majority. A lot of men want their wives/gfs/daughters to get their permits and learn to shoot. All ages as well. it's a broad demographic. most have shot some, a function of growing up in the south no doubt, but are not by any definition "gun guys".

I'm sure some blue states have lots of anti-gun folks, but they sure aren't a big group in this part of the country, and it's getting smaller not bigger.

Going back to blueboss's original post, a lot of people are concluding from this not that guns need to be further restricted but that the government cannot guarantee their safety so they'd better be responsible for it themselves. They put zero stock in these proposals making them safe, or even safer.