As remarkable as it sounds, I learned something important on Twitter recently. I’m writing up this “teachable moment” in the hope that others can benefit from it as well.
On Tuesday I spoke with my occasional writing coach, Brendan O’Meara of the CNF Podcast, and he said something offhand that is surely going to be in my book and will probably become a mantra of mine: “Being gun literate is a civic responsibility in a country with so many guns.”
Later that day, scrolling Twitter as a break from my book writing, I came across an interaction between Tom Gresham of Guntalk fame and an account called “K-12 School Shooting Database.”
The account is run by David Riedman who describes himself as a data scientist. I will assume that’s accurate and I will also assume as a fellow citizen he wants to make the world a better place. In this instance, at least, he’s failed on both counts, revealing both his gun illiteracy and his incivility in the process.
I hasten to add that I also made an error in criticizing his work, which was educational for me. I’ll return to this later.
At the heart of the matter for me was a chart K-12 SSD posted showing “reloading time to fire 152 shots at Covenant School with different types of firearms.” The reference here is to the March 23 school shooting in a Nashville church school.
Tom Gresham reposted and commented, “Uh . . . What?” with an eye-roll emoji. In trying to explain the data underlying the chart, Riedman confused matters. He claimed the data show “the time required to fire 152 shots during the Covenant School shooting with different types of firearms.”
It does not. It only includes his calculation of reloading time, not the time to fire, reload, fire, reload, fire, reload, etc.
This is an honest mistake that could easily be remedied by simply saying, “Oh, I was wrong, let me fix it.” That’s what scientists do. As of Wednesday evening, K-12 School Shooting Database hasn’t done that.
Other legitimate questions could also be asked of the chart and the data underlying it. I didn’t investigate where Riedman got the reload par times in the table, though perhaps Jerry Miculek is on his research team. I may have seen Travis Haley do it before, but I personally can’t hit the magazine release, possibly strip the magazine if it doesn’t fall out, acquire another magazine from its carrier, insert and tug the new magazine to make sure it is seated properly, hit the bolt release, and get back on target and the trigger in three seconds.
I understand what the author is driving at here, of course. You can shoot 152 rounds with a semi-automatic handgun or rifle faster than you can shoot a muzzle-loader or break-action long gun. But I don’t understand how this purportedly helps us to understand better what happened at The Covenant School.
Even if we accept the author’s estimate of the time required to load 152 rounds into a semi-automatic rifle with 30-round magazines, what’s the practical significance of this when The Covenant School mass murder began at 10:11am and ended at 10:27am?
Is this picking nits and overlooking the author’s main point? Perhaps, but science — and public policy — is all about understanding and respecting the details. It’s about getting every part of the data right, especially if it’s going to be the basis for broader intellectual claims, not to mention political ones.
So when, as scientists, we get it wrong, we say so. That’s what I had to do very publicly myself when I asserted on Twitter that K-12 School Shooting Database’s labeling of the Y-Axis in his original chart was wrong. I said it should say “seconds” rather than “minutes.”
As it turns out, I was wrong. I misread the chart. As soon as I was told I had made a mistake – by the managing editor of this website of all people – I admitted to my mistake publicly on Twitter.
I did the very thing I said K-12 School Shooting Database should have done.
As I write these words on Wednesday evening, he has not offered any correction. Instead, he’s doubled down on dismissive remarks he made about those who questioned his work, including Gresham and me. In his words when retweeting Tom, “A basic reading comprehension test might be a very effective form of gun control.” In his words when retweeting me admitting I was wrong, “The professor still can’t figure out this simple chart.” This was his reply to my admission that I had misread the chart.
That kind of snark may be par for the course on Twitter, but it’s unbecoming of a scientist and someone whose data is apparently used by the New York Times and other major media outlets. I suggested the K-12 School Shooting Database apologize for his incivility, but that hasn’t happened yet.
In my experience, many gun owners are very smart, both in raw intelligence and especially when it comes to firearms and how they work in real life. This applies even more to the person who questioned the K-12 School Shooting Database in the first place, Tom Gresham.
But rather than seeing and accepting that he might be wrong, Riedman chose the path of incivility, snarking that basic data comprehension test might be a very effective way of improving the quality of speech allowed on Twitter. Of course, as a liberal myself, the idea of invoking literacy or other tests either for First or Second Amendment rights evokes all the wrong memories of American history.
In the end, this poor behavior discredits Riedman’s work, certainly in my eyes and the eyes of many gun owners. Perhaps he doesn’t care. Perhaps his main audience of gun control advocates doesn’t care. But they should care and so should he. Especially if his goal is, in fact, to understand the world accurately and to make it a better place, as I assumed at the outset of this post.
David Yamane is a Professor of Sociology at Wake Forest University. He is currently finishing a book on American gun culture tentatively titled Gun Curious. His YouTube channel “Light Over Heat” seeks to educate people and enrich conversations about guns in America.
Federal judge rules Biden administration’s ban on pistol braces likely violates Second Amendment | Fox News
https://www.foxnews.com/media/federal-judge-rules-biden-administrations-ban-pistol-braces-likely-violates-second-amendment
So who cares what a judge says anymore?
A Bill of Rights, A Constitution, dont mean nothing.
This paper says ,, ,,,,,
“Yeah , hide and watch.”
Incivility aside, the data presented seem to show that anything more modern than a muzzle loader would have sufficed to fire the same number of shots in the time that the attack took place. Not quite the support for restricting “assault weapons” that was likely intended.
agreed, especially when you adjust the reload times of all the other weapons mentioned to what is easily demonstrated as much shorter. which, of course illustrates how deadly they are too, but “those crazy wargunz no one needz.”
considering a basic skilled shooter at less than 40 feet can hit 10 -15 basically stationary human sized targets in one minute or less pretty easily (most wounded/killed in mass/school shootings have gone for cover or remained in relatively the same space thus practically are stationary…and the shooter is usually always advancing into or on those areas thus getting closer) … and it takes police longer than 1 minute to arrive…the reload time or magazine capacity is not really a factor that affects much when it comes to a semi-auto.
self admitted liberal at woke forest.
all that time and energy devoted to demonizing a semi- auto rifle. because that’s the problem.
Speaking of a reading comprehension problem…
I want my .30-30 and .45-70 govt. lever guns to hold 14 rounds… Doing a mag dump I can reload the AR in about 5 or 6 seconds and shove 5 rounds in my 12 gauge pump in about 7 or 8 seconds… Don’t own a musket but I believe the militia men were required to load and fire three rounds per minute…
NopeHaving closely studied that period of time and the “tools” in common use then and there, our well-regulated militiamen could reload and be ready for another round in well inder a minute. On the other hand the Regulars at the time had been trained as per typical Brit fashion to do it ‘by the numbers” almost as a dance, and they typically took between two and three minutes to reload nd fire that next round.
HOWEVER the main difference between the paid soldiers and the Patriots defending their own homes was this: our militia were trained and skilled to have an effective range of 150 to 250 yards. The Regulars were trained to identify a range of 75 yards and NOT engage or fire upon any target at a range greater than that.
Read accounts of some of the specific incidents in 19th April, the day of Lexington and Concord. One man, Hezekiah Wyman, is known to have singlehandedly taken out between fifteen and eighteen Britush OFFICERS all from a range of 250 yards and greater. He never had one round fired at him because he remianed out of their “effective” range.
Earler at the North Bridge at Concord, two comaonis of Regulars fired a volley at the Colonials the other side the bridge. Two men were hit and killed, another lightly grazed and not taken out of action. When Davis’ militiamen returned fire ine third of the officers and one fourth of the Regulars fell tot heir balls.
So how fast someone can reload means nothing. It is HOW ACCURATELY and at WHAT RANGE the rifleman can fire, and at that level of accuracy.
This debate is tilting at windmills. .
I was struck by the time disparity between “black powder rifles” “muzzle loaded musket”. I’m guessing the latter means a smooth bore flintlock. Obviously our ancestors should have outlawed the percussion cap since it cuts reloading time by half, even though it’s slower to start a ball into a rifled barrel than slide a barrel down an unrifled tube.
A more pertinent question might be: “How long would it take 5 school teachers or school personnel that were trained, armed with semi-auto pistols or an AR they could retrieve from a locked cabinet, and knew their facility well, to deliver sufficient accurate shots to stop the attacker, as compared with just relying on an SRO or city police to arrive and accomplish the same?” Or how about, “How many innocents have to die while we listen to leftists’ plan of “gun-free zones” and citizen disarming, which they call “doing something?”
How many minutes and seconds did it take the mass murderer in Japan to chain the doors and pour gasoline?
The efficiency of this and similar attacks is such that I am grateful it is not the goto
It doesn’t matter how many rounds or mags I carry; I still hope and pray to never have to use my weapon, but if I do, to stop the threat as quickly and efficiently as possible.
Wow, is he ever wrong. Plus there is this > Semi-auto w/30 round magazine invented 1967?
A 30 round magazine was created to be fielded to the Army in 1966-1967 time frame. BUT! the 30 round magazine upon which the army improved and was created (by improvement) to be fielded to the Army in 1966-1967 time frame was really already being marketed by Colt in 1965 which was actually a magazine design created by Armalite that Colt had gotten in their buying the patent, in 1959, of the Stoner re-imaging/re-design of the original civilian design Armalite AR-15 (which was originally designed as a civilian only sporting type rifle in the early 1950’s). Armalite had planned to offer 5 round, 10 round, 20 round, and 30 round magazines with its civilian AR-15.
The AK-47 had a 30-round magazine long before that.
That’s true too, that the AK-47 had a 30-round magazine before that. I was just going with the civilian semi-auto only AR-15 (and it was a semi-auto only civilian rifle first and not a military rifle) because that’s what he is really trying to imply.
German sturmgewehr had a 30 round mag in 1944. The Russian PPSH 41 had both a 35 round mag and a 75 round drum.
Pedersen device. Forty rounds. 1918 I think.
thompson sub-machine gun 1918.
semi / full automatic.
20 round stick magazine, 30 round stick magazine, 50 round drum magazine.
And was available to the civilian market.
The M-1 Carbine, invented in 1942, had 30 round magazines available. And they were popular with the public after the end of the war.
So yes, semi-autos with 30 round magazines were definitely a thing before 1967.
In 1968 before October 22 when the NFA of 1968 was signed (the year I graduated from military high school) as I recall I could go downtown to either of two Army Surplus stores and buy an M-1 Carbine for $100 plus tax and magazines and ammo were cheap, yet there were no mass shootings, just deep state assassinations of JFK,RFK, and Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. And we the American People lost a great deal of Freedom. Hmmm… I wonder who is behind these mass shootings!
You have such a glowing assessment of the government.
I had an M1 Carbine made in 1944 with a 30 round magazine, which makes a lie of his 1968 nonsense.
The dude obviously has never heard of a New York Reload.
the dude obviously never heard of much to do with firearms reload at all.
Not as much need to if you have normal magazines.
If we’re going to postulate the use of a muzzle loader in use for a mass “school shooting” event, perhaps we should just toss the gun entirely and calculate what a keg of plain, old black powder might do if detonated inside of a K-12 institution. Or just a few gallons of 89 octane gasoline- no FOID (nor brain) required.
And while we’re on the issue of “elapsed time”, how about how long it might take for armed teachers and staff to respond if allowed to actually be somewhat responsible for the safety of their charges?
Bingo!
See the Bath school bombing in 1927:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1927-bombing-remains-americas-deadliest-school-massacre-180963355/
Lot of variables in the shotgun world. Many HD shotgun models use detachable 10 round mags (or drum mags), and at least 2 carry 15 or more in 2 or 3 selectable tubes. And even with pump guns, many will feed mini-shells quite well giving you additional rounds, and so on. These kinds of options drastically reduce reload times.
Same goes for other firearms in various ways. Speed loaders for revolvers and so on. And last but not least is the “NY reload” (more than one gun carried). No law exists that I’m aware of that limits how many full loaded firearms you can carry.
In other words the author of that “study” is full of it.
never enough.
“No law exists that I’m aware of that limits how many full loaded firearms you can carry.”
Uh, I guess you’ve never heard of MA, NY, IL, CA, WA, OR, D.C., among other places…
I’ve heard of them. Even lived in a couple many years ago. Don’t care what kind of BS they have now. That’s their problem, not mine.
I live in one of those named states, have my Mother May I Card, am quite familiar with our laws (though they may have slipped a new one I’ve not yet heard about past the denizens of the Marble Zoo in the Capital, but I am unaware of any restriction on how many GUNS I may lawfully have ready to hand…. cite your source?
Go back and re-read. This is what I responded to above:
“No law exists that I’m aware of that limits how many full loaded firearms you can carry.” CARRY, which to just about everyone means outside of your home.
Nashville school shooter had three guns, only one was an AR, the other two a Kel-Tec Sub2000 9mm and a 9mm S&W handgun… that’s 73 rounds before first “reload” with full mags and a round in the chamber of each…
The thing about tube magazine fed shotguns is, with practice, they can essentially be bottomless. Shoot two load two. Shoot one, load one. Basically forever. If the shooter isn’t under immediate time pressure, like immediately under attack, the gun can remain fully topped off at all times. The main constraints other than practice doing the reload would be how much ammo can they carry and how easily can they access it.
25-50 if going with the more efficient (and cheap) box pouch or two. The large bandoliers get more difficult to access as you go and the sling mounted versions get silly past 5 or so. Side saddles (most practical generally) and placard holders get an honorable mention if going full mall ninja.
So the 1911 handgun wasn’t invented until 1938, who knew?
Maybe the claim is that all semi-autos had lower capacity than ten rounds before the Browing Hi-Power?
Levels of (in)civility have nothing to do with guns. It is important to recognize that living in the US means living around large numbers of firearms. Some in the hands of bad people and some in the hands of good people. Being civil to eachother is about being human. Regardless of where you are.
Civic responsibility is a part of loving your country, it’s laws, and it’s way of life. Thos that cross the border wether legally or not that refuse to assimilate into the American culture feel no civic responsibility. Many are doing so with absolute intent on destroying America.
Part of your duty as an American is taking on civic responsibility. That is what defines the difference between those that live here and those that are commonly referred to as ‘citizens’. Although in this country, you have the right to reject this. Doing so does nothing but harm to you and those around you. People have the right to be stupid. Some take advantage of this and decide to be homeless, drug addicted, or even criminals. This is the easy way out and is the allure of liberalism.
“Levels of (in)civility have nothing to do with guns.”
It isn’t so much interesting as it is sad that those who screech about the prevalence of firearms in the US (and mass shootings, suicides with firearm, whatever) and then compare to whatever European nation that doesn’t have these problems with guns because “strict control”, have zero interest in acknowledging the US’ rape rate being 6-9 times higher than Europe, or the general non-existence of home invasions, domestic violence, etc. there. As if doing so would force them to realize/admit people (and lack of civility) are the problem.
Unfortunately facts and truth don’t matter to the opponents of freedom.
Most of what creates these particular problems comes from alcohol and drug abuse, extreme levels of frustration (men and women), loss of God (The Bible/Church), and a growing percentage of the population looking to government for all the answers. What we are seeing is about fatherless homes, feminism, and the general destruction of the family unit. This is the legacy of the Democrat party.
Bring guns into the mix has just as much of a chance at making things worse as it does at saving people from real harm. The difference is made with intent. This is why our system of law is (in part) based on that. But sooner or later, someone somewhere will say “enough is enough”. Reality is though that much is lost in the process.
The key to all of this though is being of the correct frame of mind to start with. At some point in life, a person must decide for themselves to move to something worth having. This is the beginning of the American Dream. It is part of the foundation of a civil society. It is when more people make the purposeful personal decision toward their own civic responsibility. In America, that does mean the owning guns for the protection of life and the preservation the country.
Everything you mentioned comes from the choice to be Evil and do Evil things. Nothing more…Nothing less. Poverty, drugs, gangs and hopelessness have nothing to do with it. Having come from abject poverty, did my time with drugs and hopelessness. I understand better than most it comes from choices. Choose to do whats Right or choose to do Evil. Yes it is that simple.
@Darkman
That’s what I mean. It’s a choice.
But even if the choice is not to decide…it’s still a choice.
“Most of what creates these particular problems comes from…”
Not really. Trace it to the “begatting” of millions of children and treating them as spawn, to “raise” themselves, rather than caring for, teaching, nurturing, guiding, demonstrating by example, and helping them become civilized adults. Everything else is merely a symptom, not the cause.
@Craig in IA
I’m sorry, I thought I said that too.
He’s another one that focuses on the interesting, but not the relevant. Very few of those animals were firing at the maximum rate of fire with reloads with the exception of Las Vegas.
I think one of them even used 10 round magazines according to the news (Florida). He also forgot the new magazines that carry 20 + or – a few for Sig and Beretta among others which would be a strong second over the Garand. Unless of course he wouldn’t have forgot the AK as Mad Max pointed out. Then it would be second.
I can remember quite a few of these mass public shootings where the perp used ten round mags. Two of them had stated they chose them because they fit better into the carry case..Parkland is one of those cases, I believe the Aurora CO movie shooter did the same.
1) It’s not Twitter anymore, it’s “X, formerly known as twitter”, lol.
2) imo, spree killers are mainly looking for satisfaction. When firearms technology is rolled back by banning modern designs, to the point wherein would be spree shooters cannot achieve a “satisfactory” number of victims, they will move to other, even more dangerous methods, of which there are many.
3) I read that Sharpshooter units in the Civil War typically required recruits to hit a 10″ circle 10 times in less than 2 minutes – at 200 yds.
Holy crap!
#2 point…
This is what makes the situation in Israel so poignant. The media loves to appeal to the emotional side of the audience by putting out there in such a vivid way the children that were hacked up, mutilated, and decapitated. There is a serious disconnect out there that this will be the end result of increased gun control as more and more guns are banned. Lunatics will just use something else (knives, swords, machete’s, daggers, pipes, rocks, etc.). Refusing to deal with the problem is the problem.
Example:
Israel decides to take care of business as Biden not only refuses to but actually arms the enemy.
Air Fuel Explosions are pretty nasty. Gasoline is only one available fuel. Lots of powders will go poof with proper dispersal. (See Mythbusters coffee creamer episode, for starters…)
How about a response of IDGAF about his chart and that I find the modern reload times very useful for shooting evil people faster who might be coming to try to take my guns?
Left playbook file of thumb: never let facts interfere with your narrative.
Also, this is a textbook example of how to say you don’t know squat about guns and how they work without telling you don’t know squat about guns and how they work.
…file=rule…
Pure Ludditism; in reality if we engage on this slippery slope what they are opposed to is the cartridge loaded firearm. Once that was invented it was inevitable that the cartridge filled magazine would follow. Their inclusion of the musket as a comparison makes this clear. Once they ban the cartridge loaded firearm, the rifled barrel will be next. This needs to be understood and discussions such as discussed in the article need to be had in such consideration.
c-96 broomhandle mauser.
1896
I read the accounts of this Nashville school shooting as they came out.
TWO facts stand out: one, she carried the much-maligned “assaut rifle”, using that to breach the main entry door. Then she switched to the semi-auto handgun she carried, mush “handier” in the close environment in which she was doing her nasiness. Fact one.
Fact two.. as she was busily shooting out the glass in the main entry door, there was a 61 year old male custodian who was attempting to resist her. He was armed with… a pair of fists. IIt was described how she, once haivong shot out the glass, had turned round, bent over, and made her way through the glass and mess backwards into the narrow hall giving out onto the main wide hallway of the building. WHY was not this male costidian armed and trained? He had time enough ti empty a full mag, then reload, as she carefully picked her way through the mess she had made of the glass. RIGHT THERE is where this COULD have been ended.
It was also carefully and quietly mentioned in the reporting that she had considered other target schools, but selected THIS ONE kniwing NO ONE there would be armed, per school policy. Tennessee state law at the time allowed for private schools to make the decision to arm school staff. This school had decided to NOT have anyone armed in that facility.
Yet the media want to blame the AR and standard cap mags for the carnage.
Maybe blame the folks who decided to have green coloured seats on the airliner for the crash it had later on. Makes about as much sense.
The ONLY cure for school shootings that will work (besides closing them all and teaching your own kids at home) is to allow any adult staff working at any school to get training and be armed whilst on the job. Brinks money truck crews do that. Are not the chidlren worth far more than the money bags Brinks haul about the country?
i think it should be a requirement that every adult … teachers and staff have a concealed weapons permit to work in any school.
The earliest-known model is a German breech-loading matchlock arquebus from around 1490-1530 with a 10-shot revolving cylinder. M.L. Brown, Firearms in Colonial America.
Nitpicking over reloading time seems like missing the point entirely.
As if they really don’t care to stop the assault. They would however like to marginally reduce the number of bullets that fly during that assault.
Capacity restrictions require the complete eradication of an idea. The means and knowledge to create magazines is not special, restrictive or requiring special magical tools and there are Billions with a B in circulation already.
Putting down the assailant ASAP accomplishes the same goal of reducing the number of bullets fired and requires going after only one (usually) or a few targets that present themselves to you rather than combing the nation for every little plastic or metal box in existence.
The path of least resistance is obvious. Only a complete zealot at this point is still arguing for capacity restrictions or any of the dead old horse AWB provisions which failed and continue to fail miserably.
“… but science — and public policy — is all about understanding and respecting the details. It’s about getting every part of the data right, especially if it’s going to be the basis for broader intellectual claims, not to mention political ones.”
Um, that’s a big negative there ghost rider.
A disturbingly large percentage of “science” and an even more disturbingly large percentage of public policy is about achieving an objective which almost always benefits the Ruling Class at the expense of the Working Class–and quite often has no relation to truth nor facts.
The author’s disconnect in that regard could be the greatest contributing factor to our nation’s negative spiral.
Pro tip: STOP assuming that all science and public policy is about advancing the good of society. Some may very well be for the good of society. You should verify that for yourself, however, before accepting the claims of someone in a lab coat or formal business attire.
Racist roots, gun control, blah blah, blah.
Blah blah, blah. I thought you were going to continue, you must have got something caught in your throat.
That there was funny possum!
I am not sure if I am amused or mortified that I have also thought of applying that moniker to our resident commenter who appears to have suffered a closed-head injury at some point in her life.
A full minute to load a Brown Bess style musket? He’s pulling the numbers out of his backside. Even a rank beginner who has to think about his every move can do it in half that. I can do it in about 15 seconds without rushing. Ordinary British soldiers trained to load and fire 6 rounds a minute. Maybe reloading a matchlock arquebus could take reasonably take 60 seconds, given that in order to avoid accidentally setting off your powder, you’re supposed to remove the slow match from the lock, put it somewhere safe before reloading, and then replace it once your gun is loaded. I’ve never tried one, so I don’t know. Of course, those were more characteristic of the 1500s than the 1700s. Even then, a dozen of those arquebuses and 4 swivel guns were enough for Pizzaro and his men to slaughter 2000+ Incas at Cajamarca. It isn’t the attackers’ weapons themselves that matter; it’s how they compare to the defenders’.
Okay, another view, since to paraphrase Norman Osborne, I’m something of a data scientist myself (I’m in school for it right now), so I’m going to take a crack at some more context:
Event time
MinStart
MinEnd
MinElapsed
SecElapsed
11
27
16
960
GunCapacity# of reloadsTime per reload (seconds)Total reload time (seconds)% of event spent reloading
Semi-auto w/ 30 round magazine3053152%
Semi-auto w/ 30 round magazine10153465%
Detachable magazine bolt action rifle8193576%
Lever action repeater rifle14112021724%
Pump action shotgun (5+1)6251025328%
Bolt action internal magazine hunting rifle (5+1)5301030433%
Standard revolver pistol6251230433%
Double barrel break action shotgun276538041%
Black powder rifle1152304560498%
Muzzle-loaded musket1152609120996%
Hopefully that worked.
Even taking this data at face value (highly dubious, just one example), there are three classes here. One where the reload speed is completely irrelevant: the semi-autos and the detachable magazine bolt action. A second where the reload time is questionably relevant, the lever action, pump action, bolt action internal magazine, standard revolver, and the break action shotgun. In these, a somewhat significant time of the event is spent reloading (24% to 41%). The third category is made up of archaic weapons where the task would be literally impossible to carry out, taking five to ten times as long as the time available.
However, there’s a large point being missed with asking the question “how long does it take to fire 152 rounds?” in the first place. Before numbers are even collected and numbers crunched, we need to make sure the questions are meaningful. In my opinion, the meaningful question here is “how long does it take to kill six people?” That’s what we’re talking about with the Covenant School Shooting. If a shooter uses a double barrel shotgun to kill the same number of people with 12 rounds, those people are equally dead. There’s no success there.
My interpretation of this is what it has always been: the deadliest weapon the mass shooter arsenal is time alone with helpless victims. Categories one and two are definitely up to the task. More than 150 rounds are not required to kill six people. If there were a competent armed defender on scene from the beginning, there’s every possibility that no one dies. If the shooter were denied entry by sufficient security measures, no one dies. Policy should be focused on preventing death, not on preventing ammo expenditure.
Okay, the tables didn’t format. I rolled the dice, and it didn’t work. Oh well. Here’s the relevant summary of the new data, which is the last column:
The % of event spent reloading goes as such:
The semi-autos (and I just noticed I have a typo, the second one should be “10 round magazine”) are 2% and 5%. The detachable magazine bolt action rifle is 6%.
The lever action rifle is 24%, the pump action shotgun is 28%, the internal magazine rifle and revolver are both 33%, and the break action shotgun is 41%.
The black powder rifle is 498% and the muzzle-loading musket is 996%.
The assumption that the gun control crowd always make is that if whatever stupid restriction they’re pushing had been in place, the attacker would carried out their attack exactly the same way, but with less effective weapons. So, armed with a lever-action or pump gun, they’d still have sprayed and prayed and required over 20 rounds fired for each victim killed. No way they’d have aimed more carefully and adjusted their attack based on the limitation of the weapons available. It’s not as though these killers plot and scheme and study other attacks to try to “improve” and get a higher score. Gun-grabber math….
“It’s not as though these killers plot and scheme and study other attacks to try to ‘improve’ and get a higher score.”
just to clarify…. they do “plot and scheme and study other attacks to try to ‘improve’ to – get a higher score in terms of shooting as many as possible. Over ~90% of these mentally ill killers leave behind writings or journals showing their study of other attacks and cite their desires to do better (“improve”) to kill/injure even more to outdo the ones that have gone before them. And every one of those have cited their study of other attacks was based on media and anti-gun organization coverage of the shootings.
You missed the sarcasm.
152 rounds barely equals three rounds from a 12 gauge shotgun with a 3&1/2 chamber loaded with #4 buckshot.
Or about 17 rounds of 00 buck.
Not that you’d need 17 rounds of 00 buck to kill six people, in most cases.
But you would need 6 shells. Unless you loaded up Brenneke 12 gauge slugs and lined up your victims back to belly; in which case you’d only need 3 shells, or maybe only 1 or 2 for all 6 depending on how beefy they are. 😉
For even close to being a valuable dataset, there should also be a table indicating the times for each reloading method WHILE SOMEONE IS RETURNING FIRE.
“I may have seen Travis Haley do it before, but I personally can’t hit the magazine release, possibly strip the magazine if it doesn’t fall out, acquire another magazine from its carrier, insert and tug the new magazine to make sure it is seated properly, hit the bolt release, and get back on target and the trigger in three seconds.”
Brah, do you even Call of Duty?
On a more serious note:
“But I don’t understand how this purportedly helps us to understand better what happened at The Covenant School.”
It doesn’t. It’s not meant to. This person may be trained in data analysis but they’re an activist first, propagandist second and data dude somewhere down the line.
Consider their usual argument and the “dataset” presented. What do they normally argue? That the Founders couldn’t have foreseen modern weaponry and that the 2A only covers muskets.
Now compare that argument to the dataset and extract the simplest argument from the data, you know, like if you were still in first grade.
Oh, we now have “data” to back up our claim about the 2A, funny that.
How we got that dataset or how we manipulated it after that is immaterial since most people won’t ask and if someone does we’ll go down a “you wouldn’t understand, we’re experts” rabbit hole laced with dismissive and insulting comments to boot. You’ll chase this like a good little rabbit and you will accomplish nothing, as designed.
It’s propaganda. You don’t argue it, you call it out.
Although it shows 5 minutes in the chart, a tube fed shotgun is the ultimate weapon for slaughtering a bunch of defenseless people. It makes devastating wounds, can be topped off while ready to fire, and have a relatively high rate of fire. Typically, murderers have many minutes to commit their heinous deeds, especially as victims try to “run, hide, fight” without weapons to fight back with. Shotguns also have the advantage of being able to shoot off door bolts or hinges for those that try to barricade themselves.