Virginia Tech Review Panel's Assessment of Magazine Bans

Status
Not open for further replies.
Justin

Justin

Moderator Emeritus
Joined
Dec 29, 2002
Messages
19,566
Location
THE CHAIR IS AGAINST THE WALL
In the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting, I've been going back and doing some reading on previous spree shootings. One of the documents I'm working my way through is the Virginia Tech Review Panel's Report on the Mass Shootings at Virginia Tech. (You can download the report here:
http://www.governor.virginia.gov/tempcontent/techpanelreport.cfm )

The report is quite comprehensive, covering a history of Seung Hui Cho, his mental problems, Virginia Tech's security protocols at the time of the shooting, a timeline of the shooting, and how Cho acquired his guns.

As you might recall, Cho committed his crimes with a Glock 19 and a Walther P22. He purchased and subsequently used numerous magazines for both guns, including several 15-round magazines for the Glock 19.

On page 87 of the PDF I came across the following bombshell:

The panel also considered whether the previous federal Assault Weapons Act of 1994 that banned 15-round magazines would have made a difference inthe April 16 incidents. The law lapsed after 10 years, in October 2004, and had banned clips or magazines with over 10 rounds. The panel concluded that 10-round magazines that were legal would have not made much difference in the incident. Even pistols with rapid loaders (ed. I think they are referring to revolver speed loaders here) could have been about as deadly in this situation.
Click to expand...


So there it is.

In an official 260 page review conducted jointly between the Virginia Governor's office and Virginia Polytechnic Institute, the official stance is that a magazine ban would have made little to no difference in the outcome of the shooting.
 
I think it wouldn't have made a difference in the Sandy Hook shooting either. He was unopposed until the cops showed up. To be fair though, it would have made a difference in the Arizona shooting of Gabby Giffords. After his 30 round Glock magazine ran out, he was tackled by an old woman before he could insert the next mag. If it was a 10-rounder, he would have been stopped sooner. 10 to 15 rounds, not much difference. 10 compared to 30 or 100 in a drum, big difference. It's probably why NJ allows 15 rounders.
 
I think it wouldn't have made a difference in the Sandy Hook shooting either.
Click to expand...

Of course it wouldn't have made a difference, and to believe that it would is pure baldercrap.

It's never made a difference, there's not one single shred of evidence behind the claim that capacity limitations will change the outcome of a spree shooting, either by limiting the amount of ammunition carried by the shooter, or by giving bystanders a chance to bum rush the shooter and take him down.

I've seen some people try to claim that this is what happened during the Giffords shooting, but Loughner wasn't taken down while changing magazines, he was taken down after his gun malfunctioned.

Source:
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/09/nation/la-na-0110-gabrielle-giffords-20110110
 
It jammed after how many shots and/or how many mag changes?

I don't think it's that inconvenient to carry several mags and change them... takes but a moment in my hands.
 
Inconvenient to carry lots of mags every day for the Joe Citizen... yes.

Inconvenient for someone intent on harm with premeditation to carry a fannypack or backpack or belt carriers? Not at all.
 
It jammed after how many shots and/or how many mag changes?

I don't think it's that inconvenient to carry several mags and change them... takes but a moment in my hands.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, Loughner emptied the 30 round magazine he started with, loaded the new magazine, and the gun failed to fire on the first round.
 
Loughner fired all 31 bullets in the magazine and was reloading when a woman in the crowd, already wounded, attempted to grab the gun from him. He finally changed the magazine and tried to fire, but the gun jammed. Meanwhile, two men from the crowd grabbed him and subdued him, officials said.
Click to expand...

I sit corrected, however it gave those people a period of time with which they closed the distance to the shooter without being fired upon. We can't just discount the value of this time period because we're all speedy reloaders.
 
a morbid thought, but many of those big sticks that are not OEM or mec-gar jam. Arizona may have been aided by an inexperienced gunman who ran substandard products because he just went for capacity.

That is all conjecture and speculation though, as I do not know the brand of the magazines in the Gifford shooting.
 
She was attempting to grab the gun from him. Most likely she got her hand on the slide and caused it to jam. It's very easy to jam any locking-breech action this way.
 
The panel concluded that 10-round magazines that were legal would have not made much difference in the incident.
Click to expand...

That's a very logical and rational analysis.

It's too bad that the gun grabbers (Feinstein, et al) are devoid of logic and rational analysis. They don't care about truth. They only want our guns.
 
A shooter always has his back to somebody, even if he is on a platform like the Colorado theater shooter. More people need to step up to the plate and start jumping these guys while they are looking another direction. As my Delta Force nephew told me in a discussion about life once, you are going to die sooner or later anyway so why not do something positive with your life. That certainly changed my way of looking at my thought processes.
 
She was attempting to grab the gun from him. Most likely she got her hand on the slide and caused it to jam. It's very easy to jam any locking-breech action this way.
Click to expand...

You have no proof or a cited source that this is what happened at all.

All we know is that Loughner reloaded the gun and when he tried to fire it, it malfunctioned. Unless you have a source to cite (which I would very much like to see if you do) your post is nothing more than conjecture.

I could just as easily say that the first round in his magazine was out of spec and therefore didn't chamber. Or that the magazine was after-market junk. Or that God came down from Heaven and stopped those bullets.
 
Having more rounds available without having to reload is really more useful for defensive purposes than mass murder, as murderers can carry all the magazines they want and usually have more of an opportunity to reload. Not that gun-grabbing politicians care because their goal is not to stop mass murders, which are useful for them, but to chip away at and ultimately take away our means of defense.
 
If a magazine capacity ban passes, it will merely cause spree shooters to change tactics. We will probably see more sniping and ambush attacks as opposed to the berserk storm-the-building type. Charles Whitman and the Beltway Snipers come to mind. Then what? A ban on optics?
 
SunnySlopes said:
That's a very logical and rational analysis.

It's too bad that the gun grabbers (Feinstein, et al) are devoid of logic and rational analysis. They don't care about truth. They only want our guns.
Click to expand...

True that! Every study out there says the first AWB had a zero effect on crime - yet here they come, trotting out another one.
 
Of course mag capacity wouldn't have mattered. He had all the time in the world to wander from room to room and murder people. Same with Sandy Hook.
 
Most important point.

The panel concluded that 10-round magazines that were legal would have not made much difference in the incident.
Click to expand...

There is a big difference with the proposed Feinstein AWB legislation. It actually bans guns or relegates them to NFA status like full autos. For most of us, that means that these guns will be only owned by afectionados. No new guns are to be sold also. It quite literally is a ban.
 
Which means the kooks that want them to commit a mass shooting will have to depend on their local newspaper listing who owns them so they can acquire them illegally.
 
It doesn't matter how much empirical evidence we throw at politicians about more guns=less crime and standard capacity magazines deter/promote crime. They are intent on convincing people that they know what is best for us regardless of what studies show. Worst part is they seem to be winning.
 
Just because they're more vocal and get more media time doesn't mean they are winning. It gives them a much better CHANCE of winning if we remain silent and do nothing.
 
The intent of the President, et al, is not to decrease crime or violence. It is not to disarm the criminals.

It is intended to disarm lawful decent American's who are not of the protected 'elite'.
 
I didn't know the VT shooter used a Walters P22 as one of the guns, was it used to kill any of the victims?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
VA Tech Report Released
Replies
18
Views
901
Steve 48
S
S
  • Locked
Letter to the Daily Show
Replies
8
Views
532
primalmu
primalmu
B
  • Locked
Virginia Tech Incident Review Panel site.
Replies
4
Views
405
K5mitch
K
O
  • Locked
CNN Article Legal Loophole
Replies
13
Views
609
another okie
A
Mainsail
  • Locked
Special Report: Irresponsibly Gun Shy
Replies
1
Views
508
Mainsail
Mainsail
Back
Top