My father (a former sheriff) got an award for tackling a crazy guy with a gun in the middle of a public street. The guy was shooting off rounds and had a jam. My father took that opportunity to run up and tackle the guy. No, it wasn't a magazine change but can still present a similarly short window of time and my father used that short window to attack and disarm the man.

SNIP

Bravo to your father.   

The taking of action immediately or soonest is the way to stop.  Short of preventing mass shootings (that's another topic), best is resistance.  Not to wait for anything.  A CCW or armed security response soonest.  Gang tackle, preferably from the rear or side.  We did some active shooter drills in a defense class and I played the role of shooter a couple of times with different groups.  One thing that I noticed that I did get a sort of tunnel vision, trying to "target" individuals, I didn't notice the "resister" coming from the side to take me down, which is what the training was.  The key there is once that first resister makes the move, to jump on and overwhelm.  I'm not saying that is the best nor only way, but seems an effective and realistic means.  I'm not saying charge the shooter indiscriminately, but the idea of people waiting or recognizing a mag change isn't realistic at all. 

My father (a former sheriff) got an award for tackling a crazy guy with a gun in the middle of a public street. The guy was shooting off rounds and had a jam. My father took that opportunity to run up and tackle the guy. No, it wasn't a magazine change but can still present a similarly short window of time and my father used that short window to attack and disarm the man.

Was your father armed at the time?  If not, then it figures that he had to RISK HIS LIFE to stop the crazy guy.  If he were an active sheriff (deputy?), he would have had the means to meet deadly force with equal force and not risk his own life in the process.

The outcome doesn't change the odds that the crazy guy's gun would not have jammed, that the jam was quick to clear or that he had a second firearm.  Your father was damned lucky to have lived.  I think all law enforcement people should have that same attitude -- willing to die to save others -- but I also think disarming the intended victims of crazy people with guns is the wrong answer.

Anyway, this is a false anecdotal example.  A jam is not a mag change.  It is a stoppage, not a pause.  Totally different scenario.  Longer time for people to know he's stopped shooting, to see he's struggling to clear the jam and to mentally register that a pause has presented itself.  Mag changes, unless the shooter is right next to someone, barely gives anyone the chance to recognize that's what's happening, let alone offer ample time to act.

Not a mass shooting.  Next.  Jared had already killed several people including a six year old girl.  Again, mag restrictions don’t save lives because it fails to address the root cause of mass shootings and that’s the shooter.  If you look at the DOJ/FBI report on the incident you’ll read that Jared was subdued after his gun jammed.  He had expended all rounds from one mag, changed, shot the elderly woman as she tried to take his gun away, and then it jammed.  He was subsequently subdued by others in the crowd.  You should read the report rather than trust the media.

Maybe it wasn't a mass shooting because the good samaritan stopped the shooter.

You asked for more proof and I gave you actual instances. If I have to confront a shooter I am going to take any gap in time I might have whether it be from a jam or a magazine change.

You want some study provided an exact number? Something like "magazine size can make a 15.3% difference in victim rate"? Then sure, I don't think any such data exists. But logic and actual instances make a fairly strong argument in my book. Dismiss those if you want.

Bravo to your father.   

The taking of action immediately or soonest is the way to stop.  Short of preventing mass shootings (that's another topic), best is resistance.  Not to wait for anything.  A CCW or armed security response soonest.  Gang tackle, preferably from the rear or side.  We did some active shooter drills in a defense class and I played the role of shooter a couple of times with different groups.  One thing that I noticed that I did get a sort of tunnel vision, trying to "target" individuals, I didn't notice the "resister" coming from the side to take me down, which is what the training was.  The key there is once that first resister makes the move, to jump on and overwhelm.  I'm not saying that is the best nor only way, but seems an effective and realistic means.  I'm not saying charge the shooter indiscriminately, but the idea of people waiting or recognizing a mag change isn't realistic at all.

You are absolutely right, in a crazy situation like that people don't function normally. Tunnel vision, sound occlusion, time and distance perception changes etc.

I think bottom line is that in any situation like an active shooter there are going to be short windows that people can use to react whether flee or attack back. Whether it be a jam, a reload, a distraction it will be a possible opportunity. No guarantee of course, but all things equal the more windows the better your chances.

Maybe it wasn't a mass shooting because the good samaritan stopped the shooter.

You asked for more proof and I gave you actual instances. If I have to confront a shooter I am going to take any gap in time I might have whether it be from a jam or a magazine change.

You want some study provided an exact number? Something like "magazine size can make a 15.3% difference in victim rate"? Then sure, I don't think any such data exists. But logic and actual instances make a fairly strong argument in my book. Dismiss those if you want.

I refutes your one instance of the Tuscon shooting with the actual FBI report.  Again, you don’t have proof that restricting magazine capacity leads to more survivors of mass shootings.  In all the examples you cited NONE specifically show that victims survived because the shooter took too long to reload.  You’re the one ignoring the evidence and relying on unproven theory that’s pushed by the Gifford’s foundation for gun control. 

I refutes your one instance of the Tuscon shooting with the actual FBI report.  Again, you don’t have proof that restricting magazine capacity leads to more survivors of mass shootings.  In all the examples you cited NONE specifically show that victims survived because the shooter took too long to reload.  You’re the one ignoring the evidence and relying on unproven theory that’s pushed by the Gifford’s foundation for gun control.

I gave you multiple examples where people used a brief window to stop an attacker. We both know it takes time for a reload. I can put two and two together.

If someone was shooting at you, would you rather they had one 30 round magazine or three 10 round magazines? I don't need a FBI study to know which one would give me a better chance of survival.

I gave you multiple examples where people used a brief window to stop an attacker. We both know it takes time for a reload. I can put two and two together.

If someone was shooting at you, would you rather they had one 30 round magazine or three 10 round magazines? I don't need a FBI study to know which one would give me a better chance of survival.

Do you honestly believe that someone will have the intestinal fortitude and reaction skills to try to subdue an active shooter within the first 10 rounds fired?

By the time he's ready for the first reload, people's ears MIGHT have stopped ringing and disorienting them.  But, I highly doubt that in the time it takes expend 10 rounds, assuming he's as you've said over and over is just trying to fire the most rounds in the least amount of time possible, that anyone will be paying close enough attention to know he's reloading at that moment.

So, if you think the SECOND reload after 20 ROUNDS is the "window of opportunity" to flee or fight, that is no different in terms of your arguments than the shooter using a 20 round mag and not having to reload.

Your logic is so sloppy -- you ignore the obvious human factors associated with being shot at and pretend this is an academic experiment with controllable variables.

I guarantee anyone can fire 1 rd/second, which means the first 10 seconds of the massacre is all anyone has to think, decide and act when the first mag is empty.  How many do you think are even in a position to view the shooter if they are hiding?  How many while running away will do an about face to fight?

If all the stars and planets align, and someone with proximity and opportunity AND COURAGE goes for the shooter, the mag change will not be the deciding factor.  The instinct to survive will be enough.

As always I am grateful for EEF contributing to this conversation because even though he claims to oppose mag bans, his POV is exactly what we are confronting at the Capitol.

The argument that 10 round mags slightly increase the ability of an unarmed person effectively escape or confront a mass shooter is a fact, and if we carelessly follow them down that rabbit hole trying to say it ain't so then it makes us look silly ideological prisoners. Remember they want to portray us as Gun Nuts who are too emotional to make life or death decisions when it comes to defending ourselves and our loved ones.

If you want to put your head in that noose I can't stop you, but there are lots of other holes in the argument we have neglected to exploit. True, we have grown used to being attacked and giving up any ground seems like losing the battle, but on the other hand we all know their Common Sense is based on lies and it is our duty to ourselves and our fellow countrymen to find them and point them out so that the other side looks silly instead.

The argument that 10 round mags slightly increase the ability of an unarmed person effectively escape or confront a mass shooter is a fact

Just this sentence, while true, has dozens of assumptions and logical holes built in. Number one it relies on the perfect scenario that Hollywood has drummed into our collective heads, and if someone does not want to see the actual numbers before making a policy decision then that is basically admitting they are swayed by emotion or some other factor like Bloomberg Bucks, preparing for the Fourth Turning, likely some combination thereof.

99.5% of people being shot at will not count rounds thinking as soon as he fires 10 I am going to rush him.  Would you bet your life that you counted right?  Hell, even when shooting in my backyard at multiple targets as fast as I can under time pressure, trying to count 9 shots and do a tactical reload, I miscount.  In this scenario, I am the shooter and its not a real life and death  situation.  Imagine if it was for real and you were not the shooter but the shootee.  All anyone would be thinking about is getting their ass out of there, especially if unarmed.

As always I am grateful for EEF contributing to this conversation because even though he claims to oppose mag bans, his POV is exactly what we are confronting at the Capitol.

The argument that 10 round mags slightly increase the ability of an unarmed person effectively escape or confront a mass shooter is a fact, and if we carelessly follow them down that rabbit hole trying to say it ain't so then it makes us look silly ideological prisoners. Remember they want to portray us as Gun Nuts who are too emotional to make life or death decisions when it comes to defending ourselves and our loved ones.

If you want to put your head in that noose I can't stop you, but there are lots of other holes in the argument we have neglected to exploit. True, we have grown used to being attacked and giving up any ground seems like losing the battle, but on the other hand we all know their Common Sense is based on lies and it is our duty to ourselves and our fellow countrymen to find them and point them out so that the other side looks silly instead.

The argument that 10 round mags slightly increase the ability of an unarmed person effectively escape or confront a mass shooter is a fact

Just this sentence, while true, has dozens of assumptions and logical holes built in. Number one it relies on the perfect scenario that Hollywood has drummed into our collective heads, and if someone does not want to see the actual numbers before making a policy decision then that is basically admitting they are swayed by emotion or some other factor like Bloomberg Bucks, preparing for the Fourth Turning, likely some combination thereof.

This is a damn good post right here. I’ve been trying to figure out a way to put my thoughts into words. You hit the nail on the head. 

Do you honestly believe that someone will have the intestinal fortitude and reaction skills to try to subdue an active shooter within the first 10 rounds fired?

By the time he's ready for the first reload, people's ears MIGHT have stopped ringing and disorienting them.  But, I highly doubt that in the time it takes expend 10 rounds, assuming he's as you've said over and over is just trying to fire the most rounds in the least amount of time possible, that anyone will be paying close enough attention to know he's reloading at that moment.

So, if you think the SECOND reload after 20 ROUNDS is the "window of opportunity" to flee or fight, that is no different in terms of your arguments than the shooter using a 20 round mag and not having to reload.

Your logic is so sloppy -- you ignore the obvious human factors associated with being shot at and pretend this is an academic experiment with controllable variables.

I guarantee anyone can fire 1 rd/second, which means the first 10 seconds of the massacre is all anyone has to think, decide and act when the first mag is empty.  How many do you think are even in a position to view the shooter if they are hiding?  How many while running away will do an about face to fight?

If all the stars and planets align, and someone with proximity and opportunity AND COURAGE goes for the shooter, the mag change will not be the deciding factor.  The instinct to survive will be enough.

You are making a lot of assumptions about how active shooters operate and how people react to such threats, none of which are universally true.

99.5% of people being shot at will not count rounds thinking as soon as he fires 10 I am going to rush him.  Would you bet your life that you counted right?  Hell, even when shooting in my backyard at multiple targets as fast as I can under time pressure, trying to count 9 shots and do a tactical reload, I miscount.  In this scenario, I am the shooter and its not a real life and death  situation.  Imagine if it was for real and you were not the shooter but the shootee.  All anyone would be thinking about is getting their ass out of there, especially if unarmed.

Personally, I wouldn't rely on counting. I would look for when the shooter has dropped the magazine and is reading in his belt for another one, but that's just me.

You are making a lot of assumptions about how active shooters operate and how people react to such threats, none of which are universally true.

Interesting choice of adverbs.

Nothing you've said about the mystical "window of opportunity" created by a mag change is universally true, either.  And yet you think somehow the argument has merit for those wishing to ban > 10 rd mags.

As always I am grateful for EEF contributing to this conversation because even though he claims to oppose mag bans, his POV is exactly what we are confronting at the Capitol.

The argument that 10 round mags slightly increase the ability of an unarmed person effectively escape or confront a mass shooter is a fact, and if we carelessly follow them down that rabbit hole trying to say it ain't so then it makes us look silly ideological prisoners. Remember they want to portray us as Gun Nuts who are too emotional to make life or death decisions when it comes to defending ourselves and our loved ones.

If you want to put your head in that noose I can't stop you, but there are lots of other holes in the argument we have neglected to exploit. True, we have grown used to being attacked and giving up any ground seems like losing the battle, but on the other hand we all know their Common Sense is based on lies and it is our duty to ourselves and our fellow countrymen to find them and point them out so that the other side looks silly instead.

The argument that 10 round mags slightly increase the ability of an unarmed person effectively escape or confront a mass shooter is a fact

Just this sentence, while true, has dozens of assumptions and logical holes built in. Number one it relies on the perfect scenario that Hollywood has drummed into our collective heads, and if someone does not want to see the actual numbers before making a policy decision then that is basically admitting they are swayed by emotion or some other factor like Bloomberg Bucks, preparing for the Fourth Turning, likely some combination thereof.

A good post. If we fail to understand your opponent then it is to our own detriment. We wouldn't have done very well in WW2 if we thought that because Nazi's were evil scum that therefore their army was a joke. We don't win any battles or sway any mins by belittling the opponents arguments, we do so by conceding where they have valid points but then showing them how in the greater position they are wrong or how the ends don't justify the means, etc.

Personally, I wouldn't rely on counting. I would look for when the shooter has dropped the magazine and is reading in his belt for another one, but that's just me.

We should make belts/pockets illegal so they cannot hold more mags. Thus cannot reload. Problem solved.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Interesting choice of adverbs.

Nothing you've said about the mystical "window of opportunity" created by a mag change is universally true, either.  And yet you think somehow the argument has merit for those wishing to ban > 10 rd mags.

No, I don't think the argument merits banning mags over 10 rounds, I have already clearly stated I don't support mag bans over 10 rounds. All I am saying is that the argument presented is factual. Just because I don't like the conclusion they draw (ban high capacity magazines) doesn't negate the validity of all elements of the argument itself. If they said the 4th amendment makes it harder to find police therefore we should get rid of it I would point out that the first half of their argument is correct but then argue why the conclusion they draw is flawed.

Personally, I wouldn't rely on counting. I would look for when the shooter has dropped the magazine and is reading in his belt for another one, but that's just me.

You're going to have your head exposed watching the shooter instead of seeking cover or concealment? Yikes! 

You're going to have your head exposed watching the shooter instead of seeking cover or concealment? Yikes!

EEF's universe is void of reality ... and logic.

"I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability."

It's not that nobody on this forum doesn't understand the anti-gunners' arguments.

It's that we also know their arguments are just so much dishonest and ignorant bullshit.

EEF thinks he's enlightening all of us because we don't take that BS on its "merits", like he wants to pretend he does.

You can't change the minds of people who only have an agenda.  They will cling to any and all arguments that confirm their preconceptions regardless of how much we try to "understand the facts as they see them," and no matter how logically we point out how wrong their conclusions are.

When you dignify their insanity with rational debate, you lose the fight -- always.

"The main difference between a Liberal and a Conservative is the Liberal hasn't been mugged."

I read many articles both for and against mag capacity limits, and it's funny how only places that already have draconian gun laws are pushing for these bans and using this reload pause argument.

Most focus on the increased efficiency, higher fire power and "attractiveness" that 30 and 100 rd mags present to would-be mass shooters.  They avoid the "tackle during a reload" benefit, because they themselves don't teach people to attack the shooters.  They teach sheltering in place, running for an exit, blocking doors, hiding in closets, etc.  They seem to get that a bunch of unarmed people, especially school kids and teachers, are not commandos trained to take out a bad guy with a pair of scissors or the pointy end of the auditorium's American flag.

So, if you want to keep harping on the existence of a 1-2 second window that offers a chance to fight back, you should know you are in the minority of those who see any merit in it.

The only place I've seen this pushed as a bonafide rationale is on Twitter, which is not the real world.