Shooting Spree in Arizona

[NYBURBS]

The commentator in that video is misleading tbh. States have always had the ability to enact mandatory health insurance laws and public options. The wisdom and constitutionality of a federal version is a completely different argument.

[Ben]

The commentator in that video is misleading tbh. States have always had the ability to enact mandatory health insurance laws and public options. The wisdom and constitutionality of a federal version is a completely different argument.

Hence Connecticut:

Sustinet board recommends public health insurance option for Connecticut....

01/07/11
Sustinet board members released their final proposal Friday that calls for sweeping changes to the state's health care system and ultimately establishes a public option open to all Connecticut residents.
The comprehensive plan, which encompasses more than 16 months of work and is outlined in a 200-page report, could potentially save the state more than $226 million to $277 million a year.
Most of the projected savings would come from federal money allocated under the health reform law and altering how health care in the state is delivered to reduce costs.
The plan includes establishing a new state insurance choice for municipalities that would gradually be expanded to private employers, small businesses, nonprofits and households.
The plan was developed by an 11-member SustiNet Health Partnership Board of Directors, which includes Lt. Gov. Nancy Wyman and state Comptroller Kevin Lembo.
"This report provides the General Assembly with a roadmap for reform - and propels Connecticut to the forefront in addressing a nationwide health care and financial crisis," Lembo said.
The Sustinet board was established by legislation passed by democratic lawmakers in 2009 in respons to the rising cost of health care. The group was charged with designing and implementing a self-insured plan to control costs and increase access to health care for individuals, small businesses, non-profits, those receiving state-assisted care and other groups.

[muhmuh]

Everyone has a right to defend themselves, and past efforts at gun control have shown that it generally only kept law abiding people from obtaining weapons. It really should come down to a personal choice on whether to carry one or not, but people that think the police will arrive in time to rescue them are sadly mistaken more often than not.

thats complete and utter bs and anyone whos ever lived in the free world (ie europe) will be able to tell you that

[Ben]

So how many is the right number? Have you ever fired a weapon? I'm asking not in an attempt to bash you, but rather because many people that have never fired a weapon seem to make somewhat unfounded assumptions about it. I've handled everything from pistols, to semi-automatic assault rifles, machine guns, and shotguns; so I'm not overly impressed with the destructive potential of a 30 round clip. However, many states do restrict high capacity magazines to law enforcement personnel only, so perhaps Arizona should consider doing the same. At some point though you would effectively render the weapon useless for self-defense purposes.

NYBURBS, as you write: "... many states do restrict high capacity magazines to law enforcement personnel only, so perhaps Arizona should consider doing the same."
I agree w/ that. They should place a ban on these types of weapons.
And no... I've never fired a weapon or owned a weapon. I'm fervently against guns.
But for those that want to own guns, well, it's their choice.
I just think we need much tighter gun laws... and restrict, again, these types of weapons.

[NYBURBS]

thats complete and utter bs and anyone whos ever lived in the free world (ie europe) will be able to tell you that

Really? Because as someone that has worked in law enforcement, I can tell you that my experience says otherwise. Oh and a whole range of narcotics are illegal in the US, yet our streets are flooded with those too. Also, comparing European countries to the US is oft times not sound. The US has over twice the land mass of all of western Europe, and effectively enforcing general prohibitions of any kind here is quite difficult.

NYBURBS, as you write: "... many states do restrict high capacity magazines to law enforcement personnel only, so perhaps Arizona should consider doing the same."
I agree w/ that. They should place a ban on these types of weapons.
And no... I've never fired a weapon or owned a weapon. I'm fervently against guns.
But for those that want to own guns, well, it's their choice.
I just think we need much tighter gun laws... and restrict, again, these types of weapons.

Ben, I think you're confusing weapon and magazine capacity. You can limit the capacity of each clip to 10 or 15 rounds without restricting owning any particular pistol.

Hence Connecticut

Yes, hence Ct, but the commentator in the video made the claim that their plan was only possible because of the federal law, which is not true. They always had the opportunity, but simply chose not to actively explore it until now.

[trish]

I have owned and shot guns. My father was an avid sportsman and I've hunted with him all through my adolescence. We hunted rabbit, pheasant, deer and bear. I never needed more than one round to drop by prey. I never used a firearm that held more than six rounds. I can assure you, I don't need thirty to protect myself from harm. I've been in many tight spots and have even defended myself against a lout with a knife and I didn't need a gun. If you want a gun to "protect" your property, that's fine; but don't endanger the rest of us, please keep it on your property.

[NYBURBS]

I have owned and shot guns. My father was an avid sportsman and I've hunted with him all through my adolescence. We hunted rabbit, pheasant, deer and bear. I never needed more than one round to drop by prey. I never used a firearm that held more than six rounds. I can assure you, I don't need thirty to protect myself from harm. I've been in many tight spots and have even defended myself against a lout with a knife and I didn't need a gun. If you want a gun to "protect" your property, that's fine; but don't endanger the rest of us, please keep it on your property.

Trish, gratz on defending yourself against someone with a knife, but the reality is that even cops are trained to shoot someone that is within 21 feet of them with a knife. Also, shooting prey and shooting someone that is trying to kill you are two vastly different things. There's a reason police departments moved away from six shot revolvers and onto semi-auto handguns with 15 round clips. If they want to restrict it to 10 or 15 round clips then have at it, but at some point you can restrict it to the point that it makes the weapon useless for self-defense.

[trish]

There's a reason police departments moved away from six shot revolvers and onto semi-auto handguns with 15 round clips.

It's called escalation in the face of lax firearm regulation.

[NYBURBS]

It's called escalation in the face of lax firearm regulation.

So you're going to tell me that NYC had lax gun regulations in the 1990's? Pardon me while I go lol a bit.

[muhmuh]

Really? Because as someone that has worked in law enforcement, I can tell you that my experience says otherwise. Oh and a whole range of narcotics are illegal in the US, yet our streets are flooded with those too. Also, comparing European countries to the US is oft times not sound. The US has over twice the land mass of all of western Europe, and effectively enforcing general prohibitions of any kind here is quite difficult.

no your streets arent flooded with narcotics by any means and im sure you know perfectly well that that is more than a mere exaggeration

the fact of the matter is that countries with tight gun control laws are generally a lot safer to live in and even in our biggest cities i cant think of any parts of town where the worst youre likely to run into late at night is more than a bunch of kids looking to beat someone up