Talk:High-capacity magazine ban

Lead sentence
The lead sentence currently says, "A high-capacity magazine ban is a form of gun control that limits the number of rounds that can be legally placed in a firearm's magazine." Actually though it limits the size of the magazine, in terms of the maximum number of rounds it can hold, and that's not the same thing. Such a law would not say, for example, that you may only put ten rounds in a thirty-round magazine, it would say that you can't possess a magazine that can hold more than ten rounds. The only exception is the provision of the NY Safe Act that said that you may only put seven rounds in a ten-round magazine, but that's been struck down. I think that the editors who work on this article understand the difference. My point is that the lead sentence should be changed, for clarity. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It's been four weeks and no one has said anything about this. So, I've rewritten the lead paragraph, here, to address this concern, and make it easier for the average reader to understand. — Mudwater (Talk)

Not NPOV items
Miguel thinks this article has lots of POV issues, so I'm setting up an area for discussion. Lightbreather (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey Miguel, what's the difference between a "high-capacity magazine" and a "standard capacity magazine"? Felsic (talk) 19:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

US only?
''A high-capacity magazine ban is a form of gun control in parts of the United States that limits the size of a firearm's magazine by banning or otherwise restricting magazines that can hold more than a certain number of rounds of ammunition. ''

Is the US the only country which has limits on magazine capacity? Felsic (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Canada does, probably more. - SantiLak  (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The article oughta say that. Felsic (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've started adding some. Felsic2 (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

off-topic
 In November 1993, the ban passed the U.S. Senate, although its author, Dianne Feinstein, and other advocates said that it was a weakened version of the original proposal.  This stuff ain't about the magazine capacity - belongs somewhere else. Felsic2 (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Virginia
The article claims that Virginia has a 20-round band, and that larger magazines can only be purchased by "citizens and permanent residents". The offered reference doesn't contain any such information, so I have marked it fv. -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:13, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know where the original contributor got the idea that there is a 20-round ban. Right from the Code of Virginia § 18.2-287.4, the "ban" is only in effect in "the Cities of Alexandria, Chesapeake, Fairfax, Falls Church, Newport News, Norfolk, Richmond, or Virginia Beach or in the Counties of Arlington, Fairfax, Henrico, Loudoun, or Prince William." and DOES NOT apply to any "law-enforcement officers, licensed security guards, military personnel in the performance of their lawful duties, or any person having a valid concealed handgun permit or to any person actually engaged in lawful hunting or lawful recreational shooting activities at an established shooting range or shooting contest."

Ok the confusion is due to the odd way Virginia enacted their assault weapon law

See in Virginia it's perfectly legal to purchase and possess high capacity magazines as they are not in and of themself addressed by Virginia law.

What Virginia law does is addresses the possession of assault firearms; which is based on a feature test, which means that inserting a high capacity magazine into a firearm makes it an assault firearm, but only as long as it is actually inserted.

Now that we have created an assault firearm Virginia law has only two applicable laws; the first law deals with the possessor: § 18.2-308.2:01 makes it unlawful for any foreign national without a green card to possess an assault firearm

The second law deals with carry and is based on if it's actually loaded: if it's unloaded then there are no other restrictions; however if it is loaded then § 18.2-287.4 applies which requires a concealed handgun permit to carry a LOADED assault firearm in certain localties.

To simplify: --Thegunkid (talk) 09:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * high cap = unregulated
 * high cap + gun = assault firearm
 * Assault firearm = regulated.

"Most Americans support a ban"
Several recent edits such as this have changed "Most Americans support a ban on the sale and possession of high capacity magazines" to "Most Americans support the sale and possession of high capacity magazines", drastically altering the meaning of the sentence. The cited sources do in fact state that most Americans support a ban. The Pew source was the only exception, and I removed it because it concerns specific groups (Democrats, gun owners, etc.) and not Americans overall. Please discuss any concerns here. –dlthewave ☎ 19:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, one point of the Pew source is to compare and contrast specific sub-groups; but, in addition, it presents summary results for "All adults." For example, in the section in the source entitled "Americans who own guns largely disagree with non-owners on gun policy, but some proposals have support from both groups", the accompanying chart entitled "Some agreement and many divisions between owners and non-owners on gun proposals", includes an "All adults" column at the far right, from which can be seen that 65% of all American adults support "Banning high-capacity magazines." Here is an enlarged version of the chart which may be more clear. As this content is contentious, restoring an additional high-quality source like Pew is recommended. 2600:387:B:5:0:0:0:A1 (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out, I must have overlooked it. I've re-added Pew 2017. –dlthewave ☎ 23:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please be aware that an anonymous user from 2600:387:B:5:0:0:0:A1 has been making small incongruous and nonsensical edits in an effort to troll editors without attaching the violations of Wikipedia policy to their known username. 2600:100E:B1B2:6AD2:910B:9920:1227:1C8A (talk) 04:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

2004 Study in article
, the material you removed has been in the article since February. You might have removed it previously but it's been in long enough to assume it's the new consensus version of the article. Wholesale removal is not OK. If you think the claim is misleading the please propose changes here. as involved. Springee (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not the way it works, consensus by silence is an incredibly weak argument. By that logic, the two months it was gone after my first removal also established consensus which the original editor violated by re-added the challenged material. I do not think it belongs in the article in any form, especially not the misleading and inaccurate form you keep re-adding. Get consensus before re-adding it. My proposed change, at this point, is just removal, as an accurate summary would include the fact that the study itself says not to base any firm conclusions on the results, meaning there is really no reason to even mention it since it is at this point an outdated study. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * First, that is how it works. The text has been in the article for months.  That makes it the assumed consensus text.  So far we have two editors in favor and you against.  That means consensus favors inclusion.  When you didn't protest the reinsertion that's that.  I would agree the consensus for inclusion isn't strong but with two editors favoring inclusion and one saying remove and given the text has been in the article for a while, consensus says include.  That doesn't mean it can't be fixed but that is what the talk page is for.  Your argument for exclusion is the authors hedge the findings by noting it's early.  That doesn't negate the findings.  Also, keep in mind this is an article only about magazine limits, not the entire law.  It would be better if you quoted the material you think is wrong as part of this discussion.  The 2004 study is certainly DUE in this article as it specifically discusses the impact of the 1994 law.  Springee (talk) 23:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, a few things mentioned in the study and absent from the proposed summary. "However, the grandfathering provision of the AW-LCM ban guaranteed that the effects of this law would occur only gradually over time. Those effects are still unfolding and may not be fully felt for several years into the future, particularly if foreign, pre-ban LCMs continue to be imported into the U.S. in large numbers. It is thus premature to make definitive assessments of the ban’s impact on gun violence." and "Guns with LCMs are used in up to a quarter of gun crimes, but it is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability to fire more than 10 shots (the current limit on magazine capacity) without reloading." and "Nonetheless, reducing crimes with AWs and especially LCMs could have nontrivial effects on gunshot victimizations. As a general matter, hit rates tend to be low in gunfire incidents, so having more shots to fire rapidly can increase the likelihood that offenders hit their targets, and perhaps bystanders as well. While not entirely consistent, the few available studies contrasting attacks with different types of guns and magazines generally suggest that attacks with semiautomatics – including AWs and other semiautomatics with LCMs – result in more shots fired, persons wounded, and wounds per victim than do other gun attacks." and "Should it be renewed, the ban might reduce gunshot victimizations." All of these point to a much more nuanced summary than the misleading one provided which insinuates broad, firm conclusions. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 23:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Which begs the question, why didn't you just add more detail vs removing the study? The fact is the study found no impact but there is no reason not to include the author's additional comments.  The study is absolutely DUE in this article.  How can be discussed. Springee (talk) 23:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Additionally, from the part actually quoted in the summary in the article, note the end part that was conveniently removed from the in-article quotation: "Although the ban has been successful in reducing crimes with AWs, any benefits from this reduction are likely to have been outweighed by steady or rising use of nonbanned semiautomatics with LCMs, which are used in crime much more frequently than AWs. Therefore, we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury, as we might have expected had the ban reduced crimes with both AWs and LCMs." The study specifically states that if use of Large Capacity Magazines had been reduced as much as the use of Assault Weapons was, there probably would have been a larger drop in lethality and injurousness of gun violence, specifically refuting the conclusion that the proposed text is being used to support. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 23:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Also from the article (section 3.3)
 * In contrast, guns equipped with LCMs – of which AWs are a subset – are used in roughly 14% to 26% of gun crimes. Accordingly, the LCM ban has greater potential for affecting gun crime. However, it is not clear how often the ability to fire more than 10 shots without reloading (the current magazine capacity limit) affects the outcomes of gun attacks (see Chapter 9). All of this suggests that the ban’s impact on gun violence is likely to be small.
 * Diving into chapter 9 offers a lot more information and detail as well as a good discussion of how HCM limits may or may not impact crimes. Basically it would be better to include a summary of the findings rather than throwing the whole thing out.  Springee (talk) 02:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Most gun homicides involve 3-6 shots being fired. This study for example pegs fatal gun assaults at six shots fired on average: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2688536 It is not surprising in the least that a ban on AWs or LCMs would have negligible impact on homicides.Abatementyogin (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Abatmentyogin, you are effectively making an argument why the authors of the 2004 study might not be correct in their suppositions. Regardless of why they might be incorrect, I think it's fair to include their opinions in this article.  If the paper you cite suggests that high cap laws would have minimal impact (the paper has to say it, we can't conclude it from reading the paper) then you could include it as well.  Springee (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Also I'm not sure that a paper which states that fatality rates increase as the number of shots fired increases ("The mean (SD) number of shots was higher in fatal shootings (6.11 [5.73]) than in nonfatal shootings (4.41 [3.98])") and that replacing medium and large caliber gins with small caliber guns would significantly reduce gun homicides ("Based on a simulation using the logit equation, replacing the medium- and large-caliber guns with small-caliber guns would have reduced gun homicides by 39.5%") can be used to argue that "a ban on AWs or LCMs would have negligible impact on homicides". This study in fact suggests the exact opposite; that reducing the caliber of guns and the number of rounds they are able to fire would directly and significantly reduce homicides. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 05:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "This study in fact suggests the exact opposite [...]" Combining the findings of two entirely different and unrelated studies to come to a conclusion runs into WP:OR and synthesis. The 2018 JAMA study is unrelated to the topic of this article. Anastrophe (talk) 08:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I never suggested that the JAMA study be used in the article. It was presented here as evidence that "It is not surprising in the least that a ban on AWs or LCMs would have negligible impact on homicides." and in an edit summary as rational for removing part of an accurate summary of another study. I was pointing out that it does not support the conclusion it was presented as supporting. I agree that one cannot use the JAMA study to question or modify the postulates presented in a different study. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 10:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * An LCM is any magazine over ten rounds. Considering that the average gun homicide involves six shots fired, a ban on magazines holding more then ten rounds wouldn't have any significant effects on the vast majority of homicides. Give it up, LCM bans have no significant impact on homicides.Abatementyogin (talk) 23:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not what reliable sources say. Your opinions and original research don't matter. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 23:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, you seem to misunderstand the way averages work. Just because it averages out to six shots tells us nothing about how many were over ten, or how much homicide rates would be reduced by eliminating magazines over 10 rounds. If half the shootings involved one shot, and half the shootings involved 12 shots, it would average to six but you could prevent half by eliminating magazines over 10 rounds. Your argument only works if the MAXIMUM number of shots fired in fatal shootings was six, not the average. The fact is that as the number of shots rises, the chance of the shooting being fatal also rises (average 4.41 shots in non-fatal shootings, average 6.11 in fatal ones). The source, which you provided by the way, states that the reason that the ban was ineffective at reducing homicides was probably because it was ineffective at actually reducing the use of LCM's "any benefits from this reduction are likely to have been outweighed by steady or rising use of nonbanned semiautomatics with LCMs, which are used in crime much more frequently than AWs.", NOT because reducing the use of LCM's is ineffective. It goes on to state: "Nonetheless, reducing crimes with AWs and especially LCMs could have nontrivial effects on gunshot victimizations. As a general matter, hit rates tend to be low in gunfire incidents, so having more shots to fire rapidly can increase the likelihood that offenders hit their targets, and perhaps bystanders as well." AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 00:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * My opinion? Numerous studies have been conducted on "assault weapon" bans which almost always include bans on magazines over ten rounds. Not a single one has found a significant reduction in homicide rates as a result of these bans. Just look at the page on the AWB for research that's cited. That's why when people advocate for these bans they do it in the context of mass shootings which represent a statistically negligible amount of deaths per year. You are damage controlling at this point and making assumptions. Again, multiple studies beyond the Koper study have been conducted on the impact of AWBs and magazine limits, and not a single one has yielded a statistically significant reduction in gun homicides. Otherwise, do you have a link to a study that shows this to be the case?Abatementyogin (talk) 19:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Everything I have said is backed up by direct quotes from actual studies, citing not random stats but the opinions and conclusions of the authors of those studies. You, on the other hand, keep making sweeping generalizations based on your own misunderstandings of cherry-picked stats, or assertions that there are "Numerous studies" supporting what you say, even though you have yet provide any references or quotes that actually back up the conclusions you are making from the data. All you have put forth is your opinion of what the data presented in the studies mean, not the actual conclusions which the authors of those studies arrived at. Do you have any studies that show the effects of laws that actually ban all LCM weapons and are effective in reducing their use? Because so far all the studies seem to indicate, and in fact expressly state, that the bans being studied were ineffective at actually reducing the use of LCM weapons due to grandfathering provisions and loopholes which allow for the continued, and indeed increasing, use of non-banned semiautomatics with LCMs. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 23:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Let me make this easier because you still don't understand. Per the Koper study guns equipped with LCMS are used in 14%-26% of gun crimes. 14% being the lowest estimate and 26% being the highest. An LCM is a magazine over ten rounds. Right off the bat we can see the great majority of guns used in violent crimes are NOT equipped with LCMs. Now let's distill this even further: Of the minority of guns used in crime that ARE equipped with LCMs, how many shots were fired with said magazines. The average gun homicide involves 4-6 shots, so its completely reasonable to conclude that even with regards to gun homicides perpetuated with firearms with LCMs, the majority did NOT involve more than ten shots fired? On what do I base this on? The fact that the average gun homicide involves only 4-6 shots being fired. Thus it is not surprising in the least that LCM bans have no significant impact on gun homicides. To quote Koper " "However, it is not clear how often the ability to fire more than 10 shots without reloading (the current magazine capacity limit) affects the outcomes of gun attacks." As I've already proven the great majority of gun homicides involve 4-6 shots being fired. Dude, go on the wiki page about the 1994 AWB. Because an AWB almost always includes a ban on magazines over ten rounds, you will see that every study cited on that page found no significant reductions wrt aw and lcm bans on gun homicides. Not on the federal or even state-level. The bans are useless according to multiple studies (again go to the page about the 1994 awb) and you need to accept that fact.Abatementyogin (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Once again, that is just your assessment. Yes, the majority of gun crimes use non-LCM, but the majority of gun crimes are not fatal. The fact is, as the number of shots fired increases, so does the fatality rate, and LCMs increase the ability to fire more shots. You keep referencing AW bans which "almost always include LCM bans", but the specific AW ban you reference did not prohibit all LCMs because they grandfather in exceptions for pre-ban LCMs, and the authors specifically address the problems this creates in assessing their efficacy: "The ban contains important exemptions. AWs and LCMs manufactured before the effective date of the ban are 'grandfathered' and thus legal to own and transfer.", "the grandfathering provision of the AW-LCM ban guaranteed that the effects of this law would occur only gradually over time. Those effects are still unfolding and may not be fully felt for several years into the future, particularly if foreign, pre-ban LCMs continue to be imported into the U.S. in large numbers" "any benefits from this reduction are likely to have been outweighed by steady or rising use of nonbanned semiautomatics with LCMs, which are used in crime much more frequently than AWs". You have yet to present any studies that show the effects of an LCM ban that does not include such grandfathering clauses, and which actually reduces the use of semiautomatics with LCMs. The authors of the studies are explicitly clear about the fact that these clauses render the "bans" ineffectual as they do not actually have a meaningful effect in reducing the use of LCMs, (as they do not actually ban all LCMs, just ones that have not yet been produced), meaning that pre-ban LCMs (which are not banned) can continue to be imported, purchased, and sold freely. That is why the use of semiautomatics with LCMs remained stead or even rose during the ban. You cannot evaluate the efficacy of reducing the use of LCMs if you are evaluating a "ban" that didn't actually ban the majority of them or reduce their use at all. That is why they say that if the bans actually applied to all LCMs, including those produced and purchased before the ban went into place, then the reduction in gunshot fatalities would be significant. They specifically point to these grandfathering clauses as the reason why there was not a reduction in lethality "as we might have expected had the ban reduced crimes with both AWs and LCMs." These are not my conclusions, but those of the authors of the studies. You still have not quoted or cited any conclusions made by the authors of said studies to support your position, but rather only the few statistics that you feel support your conclusion. That is why what you are doing is considered by Wikipedia to be original research. I don't need to accept your conclusions as fact, especially when they are clearly rooted in your personal misunderstandings of the data, and active rejection of the conclusions put forth by the authors of the studies. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 01:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I see you added a quote to you statement while I was replying, and let me say this about that; you cannot use the statement "However, it is not clear how often the ability to fire more than 10 shots without reloading (the current magazine capacity limit) affects the outcomes of gun attacks." to support your assertion that it is indeed very clear that the ability to fire more than 10 shots would definitely not affect the outcome of gun attacks. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 01:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Anyways, this is WP:NOTAFORUM, so continuing this discussion seems pointless unless you have specific changes would would like to suggest for the article that don't include removing accurate and contextualized summaries of the sources. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 01:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Let me quote: "as we might have expected had the ban reduced crimes with both AWs and LCMs Keyword "MIGHT". The authors do not claim with certainty that a decline in LCMs as a result of the ban would've had a significant impact on firearm homicides. They explicitly state this by saying "However, it is not clear how often the ability to fire more than 10 shots without reloading (the current magazine capacity limit) affects the outcomes of gun attacks." I have cited additional studies that examined the effect of the federal AWB and state-level ones that include a prohibition on LCMs. Enjoy.Abatementyogin (talk) 20:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Neither of those two sources you added mention High-capacity magazines. Sources themselves must explicitly make the connection. If the source doesn't explicitely mention high-capacity magazines, it is WP:OR to place it here and imply that it does. You cannot use your own logic to conclude that since you believe that most Assault weapon bans also include LCM provisions, than anything about assault weapons can be used here. The sources must make that connection. Also, you continue to cherry pick information when writing summaries, for instance the fact that you did not include that one of the sources states right away that "We found evidence that stronger firearm laws are associated with reductions in firearm homicide rates". AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * One of the reasons the study itself must mention High-capacity magazines, is that, as the studies that do mention them bring up, the grandfathering clauses mean that it is not actually a complete ban. I will say again, any study used on this page must explicitly mention magazine bans; merely mentioning the '94 AWB is not enough, unless they also discuss the LCM component. Those would be fine for the page on AWBs, but not this page which is specifically about magazines. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 02:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The 1994 AWB includes a ban on magazines over ten rounds in the law. It isn't a separate bill or law. Any studies conducted in the federal AWB by extension look at the effects of LCM bans. Again, no significant impact was observed. The only studies you can cite that show a significant impact are mass shooting deaths which range in the double digits per year and are negligible in terms of gun homicides.Abatementyogin (talk) 04:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "Any studies conducted in the federal AWB by extension look at the effects of LCM bans." is prohibited original research: "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented". The source needs to mention and relate their findings explicitly to High-capacity magazines. If they don't, you can't use it to imply anything about High-capacity magazines. Also from WP:OR: " 'A and B, therefore C' is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article." You can't say (A) The AWB includes a provision about high-capacity magazines, and (B) this source says the AWB wasn't effective, therefore (C) this source says bans on high-capacity magazines are ineffective. The source must make all of those statements. The source you are adding does not mention high-capacity magazines. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Your logic is nonsensical. If the federal AWB includes a ban on LCMs as part of the law itself, and all studies examining said law find no significant impact on gun homicides then a ban on LCMs has no effect. It makes no sense whatsoever for a ban on LCMs to be effective had the ban been passed without a ban on AWs. This is basic reasoning which you are unable to grasp.Abatementyogin (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * What you don't understand is that you can't use "logic" to say that sources say something which they don't explicitly state. That is original research. I would suggest that you actually take some time to read the policies which I have linked. The sources which, when reviewing the '94 AWB, actually mention LCM mention the limitations associated with using that ban as a basis for determining the efficacy of LCM bans, namely the the grandfathering clause that rendered the ban on LCM's basically ineffectual at actually reducing the use of LCMs. It tells us literally nothing about what the effects of an LCM ban that had no grandfathering clauses would be. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 04:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * That review looks at four studies conducted on the AWB. All find no effect. You're incredibly pedantic.Abatementyogin (talk) 06:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You have been warned before about civility and making personal attacks. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 06:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * And you need to understand that all studies that examined a federal law which prohibited LCMs find no significant associations with gun homicide rates. The limitation on the 2004 study is already cited in the article.Abatementyogin (talk) 07:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You are changing an accurate summary of the source to a misleading one based on your own original research. As Springee already told you "If the paper you cite suggests that high cap laws would have minimal impact (the paper has to say it, we can't conclude it from reading the paper) then you could include it as well." I do not know how much clearer I can make this for you. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 07:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * There. I cited a report by Rand that explicitly mentions LCMs and concludes there is inconclusive evidence about whether there's a significant association with firearm homicide rates.Abatementyogin (talk) 07:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with that. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 07:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)