Florida: Man shot dead at Edison Mall

[X_Digger]

51. That's not at all the suggestion you made..

Here let me quote you- In response to: "What if there were two or three dangerous intruders in your house?" you responded, "I think you'd be just as likely to shoot your own family as you would be to hit the criminals."

Nothing in anything ever quoted by you or anyone else leads to that conclusion- having a home invasion and a homeowner shooting their own family. You're stretching so hard that you pulled something and ended up in absurd territory.

Utter bullshit.

I know it must chap your ass that 2007-2008 had the lowest accidental death rate from firearms ever recorded (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm)- even with an increase in firearm purchases (based on NICS checks). 0.19 per 100,000, compared to 0.20 per 100,000 for the previous year.

[div class='excerpt']2. You can't demonstrate that having a 25, 30, or 75 rounds is really going to make a difference. The real question we should be asking is what the totality of victims are in these sorts of contexts?

There are home invasions where a homeowner ran out of ammunition against multiple attackers, such as this local one- http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=8432140 - this is the third home invasion for this homeowner, and one of about a dozen in the surrounding area in the last 8 months or so.

Feel free to tell him that he only needed 12 rounds.

[div class='excerpt']A court probably wouldn't consider what happened after the ban in this context, 30 round magazines are nothing new, and prior to the current madness they were not the common weapon. This is why to my knowledge an Assault Weapons Ban has never been ruled unconstitutional, unless you can show otherwise. I'm sensing some real seething at the Supreme Court in this regard. They've been very clear that such regulations are permissible. I could go probably find the precedent in Miller, but instead I'll just link to John Paul Stevens dissent in Heller: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html - but I guess anyone who disagrees with such outlandish arguments just wants to take away your guns right?

There have been guns with >12 round magazines since at least 1872. The purported 'test', if such a test can be intimated from the Heller decision pivots on 'in common use for lawful purposes'. Trying to ban the most popular magazine for the most popular centerfire rifle will fall pretty damned flat using those criteria. Every year, over 800,000 AR-15 pattern guns are sold, according to the NSSF.

An assault weapon ban has never been ruled unconstitutional because the question has never been litigated as such. Portions of California's ban have been ruled unconstitutional, but others have been upheld; but both cases weren't about the provisions of the ban itself, but how guns were added to the list, or due process procedures. (There's a new case in the works in CA that more directly addresses the 'vagueness'- http://reason.com/blog/2011/11/21/californias-assault-weapon-ban-challenge ).

If you did go looking in Miller you'd find the same protections outlined in Heller- the arms protected are those 'in common use' for lawful purposes.

Interesting side article on the absurdity of the so-called AWB- http://reason.com/archives/1994/07/01/weapon-assault