Here's Some Statistics

Discussion in 'Second Amendment & Legal' started by threetango, Dec 30, 2012.

  1. threetango

    threetango Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    7,428
    19
    38
    Does a high capacity magazine make a difference in these killings.

    “I’ve had a train of thought that the magazine capacity of the weapons used in a mass shooting makes little/no difference in the actual lethality of the event. While I’m no statistician, I started to use open source information to determine how long these maniacs are actively shooting, the number of shots fired and the overall lethality of the shots.
    The events I looked into: Columbine, VT, the Wisconsin Sikh Temple, Giffords, Aurora and Sandy Hook. The data is quite interesting and opens up a substantial line of argument against high capacity magazine bans.
    Average Time a Shooter is Active: 10.3 Minutes
    Average Total Shots Fired: 89.8
    Shooting Tempo: 8.7 Rounds/Min
    Wound to Kill Ratio: 1 : 2.86
    Given that anyone, with minimal practice, can do a magazine change in roughly three seconds, the data indicates that magazine capacity actually has almost no impact on the overall lethality of an active shooter.
    Other data points bolster the case; the wounded : killed ratio is far higher than defensive shootings or police shootings, indicative of the fact that active shooters are not rushed and are (unfortunately) in complete control of the situation.
    With the exception of the Giffords shooting (which is an exceptional case for a number of reasons, more of an open air political assassination than a typical mass shooting), the ONLY thing that has ever stopped a mass shooter is armed confrontation (more accurately, the notion that armed confrontation is close by).”
    If our Sandy Hook Elementary School simulation goes well, we’ll tackle this question in another round of experiments. Meanwhile, what do you think? Do you think a “high cap mag” ban would have any effect on lethality? The bad guys’ or yours?


    Anonoymous


     
  2. SHOOTER13

    SHOOTER13 RETIRED MODERATOR Lifetime Supporter

    7,242
    35
    48
    Food for thought....
     

  3. steve76

    steve76 New Member

    22
    0
    0
    The knotheads in D.C. will always put the blame of shootings on the gun, magazines or related other parts or functions of a firearm, missing the root of the problem, "the person pulling the trigger" and "there motives" behind what they do. Most if not all of those D.C. knotheads have a barage of personal "armed" security for themselves and family members that are paid by the taxpayers. Take away that security, they'd be screaming for owning and carrying a gun for their own protection, any type of gun, any means of firepower.
     
  4. Balota

    Balota Sometimes lucky! Supporter

    282
    0
    0
    Before I start, please be aware that I do NOT support any kind of magazine cap. It helps to look at things from both sides to see what kind of arguments you need to be prepared to refute. This is a devils advocate post, just for the sake of discussion. So please don't waste space flaming me as a gun grabber.

    The only difference a 10 round magazine cap would make is the number of magazines the nutcase would have to carry to have the same number of rounds available. That has a couple different effects.

    Conceivably, he could run out of pockets. The average number of shots fired was around 90 according to one poster, so let's use that as a basis.

    To carry 90 rounds with him using 30 round mags, he would have 30 in the gun and 2 each 30 round magazines. So he would need 2 good size pockets. Any kind of cargo pants or a hunting vest would be enough to carry that and then some.

    To carry the same 90 rounds using 10 round mags, he would have 10 in the gun and 8 each 10 round magazines. Carrying 8 spare magazines might be a little more difficult. Don't know whether you can fit 4 each 10 round magazines in one large pocket. He might need both the cargo pants and the vest. Or you might be able to fit 3 mags in each of 3 pockets. (That doesn't seem like a very strong argument, does it?)

    Another effect is that with 10 round mags, the shooter is having to change mags a lot more frequently. Each mag change is a possible vulnerable moment when his gun is empty and he's busy thinking about something besides his targets. With 8 mag changes, he has 4 times as many vulnerable moments as with the 2 each 30 round mags. (That only matters if someone is able to take physical action against the shooter during those vulnerable moments. That would be a lot more likely if someone in the area was also armed!)

    OK, guys, how would you refute those arguments?
     
  5. threetango

    threetango Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    7,428
    19
    38