That' snot my claim, it's what the Democrats who supported the legislation claim, that any delay in the magazine reloading transition will allow some amount of folks to either escape or subdue the shooter. It's not at all guaranteed likely to happen during any magazine change, but that's what they are basing their argument upon. It's an unlikely, best case scenario for their claim, and even in this best case it's not effective. The great flaw in their argument is that they're seemingly willing to allow or unable to prevent the shooter from acquiring his weapons, accessing a gun-free zone so equipped and shooting up at least one magazine of ammunition at deliberately unarmed targets. I don't know why no one in chambers ever called them on their willingness to allow the first set of deaths in an ASMC.It's obvious to us that of course, but as a quantitative kind of guy I like to have realistic numbers to back my arguments. Interesting that they base this entire law on the fact that some kids were lucky enough to escape during a magazine change at Sandy Hook, where the shooter had the opportunity to change his magazine outside of the classroom where he entered and ran out of ammo after shooting just two victims. They also ignore that some magazines did have up to 15 rounds still in them, meaning he did change after shooting only 15 or so rounds.So I figure the number of lives saved by the magazine ban would be much closer to zero. Furthermore how many self defensive shootings have involved more than 15 rounds? If you have even one that was successful, you could make the claim that the magazine ban could have caused that SD shooting to go the other way, so I think the case can be made that not only will the mag ban save ZERO lives, its more likely to COST lives than save any.






Reply With Quote
