HPD has centered their mag capacity argument around this theory and presenting it as an indisputable fact. It is much more likely that shooting back is the most effective means of stopping a shooter, and this waiting for a mag-change scenario to launch a physical assault is either an extremely rare occurrence or straight up fiction borrowed from a Tom Clancy novel.

In either case we need to make sure this one gets addressed in the next round of testimony because it has gone unchallenged for far too long.

Also re testimony-  Sprinkling in more statistics would really help going forward. HPD has been acting like a crime statistics authority even though the facts do not support their arguments.

There are recent anecdotal accounts of someone tackling a shooter during a mag change/fumble.  I think one was the Gabby Giffords shooting.

Loughner stopped to reload, but dropped the loaded magazine from his pocket to the sidewalk, from where bystander Patricia Maisch grabbed it.[31]

Another bystander clubbed the back of the assailant's head with a folding chair, injuring his elbow in the process, representing the fourteenth injury.[32][failed verification]

Loughner was tackled to the ground by Bill Badger, a 74-year-old retired United States Army Colonel[33] who had also been shot himself. Loughner was further
subdued by Maisch and bystanders Roger Sulzgeber and Joseph Zamudio. Zamudio, a concealed weapon (CCW) permit holder, had a weapon on his person,
but arrived after the shooting had stopped and did not draw his firearm.[34]

Thirty-one shell casings were found at the scene by investigators.[35]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting

The question is, who wants to be the first 5-10 people shot hoping the 11th is brave enough to jump the gunman after he's forced to change mags?  I'd much rather stop the shooter long before he empties his mag no matter how many rounds it holds.

Lawmakers are setting an arbitrary number on how many people they think is acceptable casualties before a potential window of opportunity presents itself, no matter how small or unlikely that will be a long enough pause.

That arbitrary number of acceptable casualties is apparently 10.

On the flip-side, a mass shooting was PREVENTED by an armed church member.  The victim tally halted after just 2 rounds were fired.  The third fatality was the murderer.

Had the church goers needed to wait for a mag change -- assuming the only mags available legally OR ILLEGALLY held 10 rounds -- that's 11 rounds (one chambered) that represents 11 potential deaths before anyone had a chance to react without being shot first.

BTW, the shooter reportedly used an illegal sawed off shotgun.  I don't know what capacity it had, so there's not much of a correlation to be drawn with the mag limits.  It seems details never get reported when the scary black rifle is absent.

The attack ended after 6 seconds, and five or six other members of the church assembly also drew their own weapons in response to the shooting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Freeway_Church_of_Christ_shooting

When someone intends to commit murder using deadly force, it's obvious our state politicians think a mag restriction somehow levels the playing field.  They refuse to allow the law abiding to be armed.  Since we can't defend ourselves with reasonable means, the law has to try and make the odds of loosing the fight less one-sided -- or at least pretend to do so.

I'll bet $100 you can find 10 lawmakers in a matter of minutes who don't know that a 10 round magazine means a criminal likely has 11 rounds loaded. 

So a State Government who does ZERO for people with mental health and addiction issues and leaves them to fend for themselves on the street, has somehow decided that legal firearm owners with all the checks were are required to go thru are the folks who have the most potential to be dangerous?

If you want some statistics to show HPD how about - We find that permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors and felonies at less than a sixth the rate for police officers,” the report says. “Among police, firearms violations occur at a rate of 16.5 per 100,000 officers. Among permit holders in Florida and Texas, the rate is only 2.4 per 100,000.10. That is just one-seventh of the rate for police officers - Crime Prevention Research Center

Anyone ever watch Jerry Miculek reload a revolver?  He fired 12 shots on target in 2.4 sec with a 6 shot revolver.  I can easily reload my Glock 19 in 1.5 sec if I have a magazine in my support hand.  By the time someone realizes I am out of ammo and need to reload, it will already have been done.  Not to mention the fact that someone planning a mass shooting can easily obtain large capacity mags, like a 21 or 33 rd mag for the Glock 9mm pistols.

Stupid laws proposed by stupid clueless idiots.

I dont think it has anything to do with mag changes at all. HPD and other orgs that see gun ownership as NOT a right will continue to chip away at the right till it is too expensive or impractical to own a firearm. The process of obtaining a rifle or pistol is illogical and only exists to dissuade ownership. Its easier to buy a car and all the info related to a car is done a lot easier and faster. Yet more people are killed with cars.

so they expect criminals to abide by HRS, and only use 10rd mags, just because?  how has that been working sofar, criminals abiding by HRS?  if that's their plan, somebody needs to be fired.  Well, if the criminals were respective of the HRS, then they wouldn't be criminals, now, would they?

so they're going to sit out a mass shooting, cool-head, behind cover, and count the shots, and then after the 10th person is shot, everybody rush?  seriously?  Well, that kinda means they got there before the first shot, dunno how, so they can start their count.  Really?  That's their plan?  or, they expect witnesses rushing out of the building to provide them with an accurate round count?  this is so ridiculously ludicrous.

Maybe that's what School Resource Officer Scot Peterson was then "bravely" doing (HPD-style) during the Florida Stoneman-Douglas Parkland school shooting, standing around outside the door, not going in.  Maybe he lost count?  The rest of the world labeled it as cowardice, but I guess that's the HPD plan.  Really?  That's what they're going with?

 

if this is the HPD mass shooter strategy, this merits National ridicule, JMHO.

HPD has centered their mag capacity argument around this theory and presenting it as an indisputable fact. It is much more likely that shooting back is the most effective means of stopping a shooter, and this waiting for a mag-change scenario to launch a physical assault is either an extremely rare occurrence or straight up fiction borrowed from a Tom Clancy novel.

In either case we need to make sure this one gets addressed in the next round of testimony because it has gone unchallenged for far too long.

I heard that too and I was interested to know whether there was any statistical data to support that.

The statement makes intuitive sense and I believe some combat training involves moving or assaulting a target when the target is reloading so it isn't an irrational belief however that doesn't mean it is statistically supported. From my experience in paintball when your opponent has gone dry and is reloading is a very opportune time to rush them. I think the argument is likely true

I heard that too and I was interested to know whether there was any statistical data to support that.

The statement makes intuitive sense and I believe some combat training involves moving or assaulting a target when the target is reloading so it isn't an irrational belief however that doesn't mean it is statistically supported. From my experience in paintball when your opponent has gone dry and is reloading is a very opportune time to rush them. I think the argument is likely true

The problem is, was he reloading or just stopped shooting. Many who hear a pause in fire, assume reloading. It takes 1 second to reload. I dont think there is enough evidence to prove either side.

But if we look at what evidence is trackable, a small number of deaths every year due to active shooters, doesnt warrant  infringing on the rights of thousands.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I heard that too and I was interested to know whether there was any statistical data to support that.

The statement makes intuitive sense and I believe some combat training involves moving or assaulting a target when the target is reloading so it isn't an irrational belief however that doesn't mean it is statistically supported. From my experience in paintball when your opponent has gone dry and is reloading is a very opportune time to rush them. I think the argument is likely true

Thank you for demonstrating the kind of flawed thought process our legislatures use.

The reason I started the thread is that it is also one of the arguments that Chris Lee used during the speech where he was pretending to assassinate his fellow House members.

He does not strike me as the type of people who would count bullets and then rush out to confront an armed attacker, but more like the type that prays for someone else with a gun to show up and stop the attack for him.

But if we look at what evidence is trackable, a small number of deaths every year due to active shooters, doesnt warrant  infringing on the rights of thousands.

Three possible responses:

1. More accurately:

But if we look at what evidence is trackable, a small number of deaths every year due to active shooters, doesnt warrant  infringing on the rights of TENS OF MILLIONS.

2. "If it can save just one life... anything is worth doing." [Prepare the gulags...]

3. The honest response, "Look, you know it, we know it, we know you know it... we have absolutely no interest in decreasing crime or crime victimization. We want only one thing, to eventually completely disarm the civilian population, and, as this must be done incrementally, this is one of those steps. We'll leave it up to you to decide why we'd want to do that."

I heard that too and I was interested to know whether there was any statistical data to support that.

The statement makes intuitive sense and I believe some combat training involves moving or assaulting a target when the target is reloading so it isn't an irrational belief however that doesn't mean it is statistically supported. From my experience in paintball when your opponent has gone dry and is reloading is a very opportune time to rush them. I think the argument is likely true

The problem is that you THINK it’s true, but have no PROOF it is.  There were lots of times in paintball and airsoft I’d pretend to go dry just to sucker someone into breaking from cover and rush. 

The problem is that you THINK it’s true, but have no PROOF it is.  There were lots of times in paintball and airsoft I’d pretend to go dry just to sucker someone into breaking from cover and rush.

Yup. Push to “do something” based on emotion, not logic or rational thought.

The problem with depending on statistics for things like this (and some on here have an addiction to statistics over common sense) is that when someone rushes a shooter and DIES in that attempt, there is no way to know if that dead person thought -- or knew -- the shooter was reloading.  Unless, of course, someone heard him say, "He's reloading!  Rush him!"

The "rusher" may have just waited for the shooter to turn his back to him, or for the moment when he was seemingly focused on someone else?  Maybe the shooter was taking aim at someone the would-be tackler cared for and he/she was acting out of instinct to protect that someone else?

Good luck finding ANY reliable stats on the FAILED attempts to rush a shooter -- during reloads or not.

The problem is, was he reloading or just stopped shooting. Many who hear a pause in fire, assume reloading. It takes 1 second to reload. I dont think there is enough evidence to prove either side.

But if we look at what evidence is trackable, a small number of deaths every year due to active shooters, doesnt warrant  infringing on the rights of thousands.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

That is always a risk. In paintball I would sometimes fire the gun without a ball to make people think I was out. I have read that US soldiers would carry extra spring clips for their M1 and pop them to trick the enemy into thinking they were out. The guy could be fake reloading to trick you into attacking but honestly I doubt most mass shooters are really thinking that deeply about tactics. Plus that is assuming you are relying on sound alone. If you see the person drop the mag out of their gun and reach for a new magazine then you know they are actually reloading and you have a short window to act upon.

I totally agree that in the end it does not justify banning high capacity magazines, just that there are merits to the argument.

That is always a risk. In paintball I would sometimes fire the gun without a ball to make people think I was out. I have read that US soldiers would carry extra spring clips for their M1 and pop them to trick the enemy into thinking they were out. The guy could be fake reloading to trick you into attacking but honestly I doubt most mass shooters are really thinking that deeply about tactics. Plus that is assuming you are relying on sound alone. If you see the person drop the mag out of their gun and reach for a new magazine then you know they are actually reloading and you have a short window to act upon.

I totally agree that in the end it does not justify banning high capacity magazines, just that there are merits to the argument.

Merits can be made for anything anti 2a, watch


If barrels were required to be 17 inches, the shooter might bang the door or wall cause that extra 1 inch didnt clear it. Thus giving someone time to run or attack the shooter.

Not being able to wrap ur thumb around the pistol grip of an AR would give the shooter less control of the rifle if someone were to attack the active shooter.

Requiring rifles to weigh 80lbs or more would make an active shooter move too slow and unable to move the rifle quickly.

Rights are designed to not be taken away or limited.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I totally agree that in the end it does not justify banning high standard capacity magazines, just that there are merits to the argument.

I fixed it for you.


While arguments can have merit, this is the problem with that.  Merit has nothing to do with proof or fact.  It's more related to feelings of worth.  An example of an argument that had merit is "Separate but equal" which was an argument used to justify school segregation, and an argument that had merit, but was proven to be false.  Again, you don't offer any proof to your argument that banning standard capacity magazines would allow survivors to escape from an active shooter because he would have to reload more often.  None of this addresses the main cause of all of this and that's the shooter.