Random thoughts:

Who are these sheltered kids that think colors have nothing to do with gang affiliation?

Wear red, blue or gold in the wrong neighborhood, that's bad news. Sorry, colors DO matter. And yes, gang member stereotype just like everyone else.  If they see someone dressed a certain way, they'll take note of the color's you're wearing.

And I don't get the logic of White cop + Black suspect = racism.  I call it the law of averages. East Brookly... yes, it is more likely that you'll run into a black person than not.

And... the kid had a loaded .357 revolver and pointed it at officers. Death is horrible, but not surprising given the circumstances.

No.

I also do not support rampant government waste.

We need to curb govt spending and rewrite tax laws to remove the loopholes. This way, a flat tax across the board will scale properly according to income.

[QUOTE="VoodooHak"]

To that I say: It doesn't matter. You're relying on the idea that maybe in that split second an unarmed person is going to rush the assailant with a window of a second or two, a split second if you care to train. Taped mags don't matter. It's even easier to just dump the spent mag. If we're talking about enacting policy, I would hope legislators would do more than roll the dice. I would hope legislators would base their policy on empirical evidence rather than emotoin-based "oh-it-sounds-like-a-good-idea".

And that's totally ignoring the notion that the criminal is going to obey laws and limit himself to 7 round magazines when millions of unserialized, regular capacity mags are still available NOW and will be grandfathered in. We're also ignoring ignoring the entirety of the black market.

So no, this will not work to limit the capabilities of criminals.

Slow_Show

It's not about rolling the dice, it's about cost-benefit: seven-round magazines obviously aren't going to magically prevent every gun death, but it does increase the likelihood that a shooter is stopped or the damage they inflict is limited. Same deal for the availability of those larger magazines: just because some criminals would still be able to obtain them doesn't mean all criminals or would-be shooters could. I could be wrong, but I'd suspect someone like Adam Lanza doesn't have quite the same connections to the black market as, say, a Chicago gang. 

On the other hand, the only cost is responsible gun owners would have to reload a little more often than they used to, which is evidently so easy to do I'm not sure it would even quality as an inconvenience. Sounds like a pretty easy choice to me. 

A cost-benefit analysis based on a purely abstract idea is about as effective rolling dice.  Emprically speaking, if you can point me to the study or any set of stats that show limited capacity magazines have prevented deaths or crime in general, I'm all ears.  On the flip side of that, there FBI crime stats shows that states with such restrictions enjoyed no consistent reduction in crime or gun related deaths.

Sure, Adam Lanza, wouldn't have accessed the black market.  He just would have obtained mags from people that had the mags he wanted....like his mother whom he shot 4 times in the head before stealing her guns.  Since he knew how to use those firearms, a limited capacity mag would not have mattered.

To suggest we spend time and effort on a policy that has been proven not to work is irresponsible.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

It doesn't take five seconds to reload a magazine in an AR-15. As this gentlemen has shown and I already know from experience. You'll want to fast forward near the end. Sorry, fast-forward to 4:20 or so.

Slow_Show

Um, I'm not sure what that video is supposed to prove. While reloading between two magazines taped together may be trivial, it would still necessitate a lengthier reload once those two magazines are spent (giving the victims their best opportunity to disarm the attacker). So in what way does being limited to 2 x 7 rounds or 2 x 10 rounds not result in fewer shots being fired between those lengthier reloads than having 1 x 30 or even 2 x 30 rounds?

To that I say: It doesn't matter. You're relying on the idea that maybe in that split second an unarmed person is going to rush the assailant with a window of a second or two, a split second if you care to train. Taped mags don't matter. It's even easier to just dump the spent mag. If we're talking about enacting policy, I would hope legislators would do more than roll the dice. I would hope legislators would base their policy on empirical evidence rather than emotoin-based "oh-it-sounds-like-a-good-idea".

And that's totally ignoring the notion that the criminal is going to obey laws and limit himself to 7 round magazines when millions of unserialized, regular capacity mags are still available NOW and will be grandfathered in. We're also ignoring ignoring the entirety of the black market.

So no, this will not work to limit the capabilities of criminals.

I thought it was an urban legend, but I ran across her on the subway here in NYC: La Dynasty

If by "that life", you mean I would take a life to protect those I love, then yes. If by "that life" you mean a life where I'm responsible for my actions and am willing to face the consequences, yes. If by "that life" you mean I depend first on myself, then yes.

Gina Carano's in it.  I'm there.

"...police conducted a search warrant of his home and found 9mm ammunition and receipts for the purchases of two rifles."

So, it would seem that they were totally safe since head no ammo to load his AK with.

He still belongs in jail, stupid or not.

[QUOTE="VoodooHak"]

Or may we can look at the simple fact that gun ownership is at an all time high, but crime is half is what is was since 1992 and has been on a steady decline since... regardless of the passage and the expiration of Clinton's assault weapons ban? This is public record if you want to look FBI stats.

Ace6301

You are absolutely on the money when you ask what caused the massive increase in crime.  The answer, based on what we know, is not the availability of guns. There's more going on here than just firearms.  And that's been my whole points as I continue to rant about the subject.

We need to step back and take a more objective look at the source of the violence.  We can't do that until the media does their job and stop deifying these whackos and reporting only the things that get them ratings.  We can't get to the truth unless the politician stop trying to enact quick-reaction laws based mostly on emotion, meant to pander to their constituency so they can keep their jobs.

[QUOTE="VoodooHak"]

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"] If everyone in the entire world owned and carried a handgun, what do you think society would be like Lai?Rich3232

You mean like it was in Kennesaw County in Georgia where gun ownership was required?  Or maybe how it was in Florida when they first passed their concealed carry laws? The argument back when these cases were a hot button topic was that it would be like the Wild West where people would be shooting each other in the streets.  And of course, no such thing happened.  The only thing that happened was the reduction of crime.

Or may we can look at the simple fact that gun ownership is at an all time high, but crime is half is what is was since 1992 and has been on a steady decline since... regardless of the passage and the expiration of Clinton's assault weapons ban? This is public record if you want to look FBI stats.

Fair enough.  Although the conclusions based on these correlations is more compelling that the anti-gun arguments. So let's look at the facts and see where they take us.  Unfortunately, the current drive for gun control is based mostly on emotion, amplified by the media who will report only the sensational.