Use hi cap magazines all the time.

Its also a self defense issue and be armed to be able to defend one self.

OK fair enough.

But just for the record, I don't think policy should be set on possibly stopping a handful of mass killings. I believe policy should be set taking net safety into account. In fact, if given some kind of magic button, I would happily push the 2x more mass weapon killings -and- 2x less individual and accidental weapons killing.

And this issue has been raised twice before AFAIK ITT. And sure, I find it very easy to believe that a distribution center that allowed non-security employees/visitors/vendors to carry weapons in an unorganized manner would have higher insurance premiums than over a distribution center that did not. Why? Well maybe it's because the higher premiums accurately represent the fact that such a distribution center is, in general, relatively less safe.

However, I really think it's veering into tin-foil hat territory to say that both facilities with a weapons quarantine policy should have the higher premiums than a comparable facility with an unorganized free-for-all weapons policy... and at the same time to claim that facilities with a weapons quarantine policy actually in fact have lower premiums... in fact these premiums are so artificially low that the allegedly more net safe unorganized free-for-all weapon policies are effectively priced out of existence.

I mean, wouldn't insurance companies be writing massive -EV policies if this is actually what going on? Wouldn't they be losing tons of profit by following this alleged behavior.

Actually, I take this back. We're really talking about some small fraction of these hundred or so victims. Mass shootings will still take place, but it is maybe possible for there to be one or two less victims thanks to your laws. Even that isn't guaranteed though.

How many times have you had to use yours for self defense?

I was going to say, it's way less than 100 people. Less than 20 for sure, maybe less than 10 if the magazine limitations worked in the next mass shootings. What will probably happen is they will use grandfathered mags and then we'll get a mag confiscation proposed.

This is relevant why?

Just wondering if not changing the gun control laws would be just appeasing people and making them think they are safer when in reality changing the gun control laws does very little to nothing to their safety.

If there's no grandfathering, there'll be tens of millions of people who are in violation of the new law. Do you think they should all be given the choice of handing in their magazines or getting arrested?

Works both ways.

These are people. What is wrong with you guys?

Well Ive never had to use it to defend myself but I've done training classes and a lot of shooting. Mag changes are quick but the main hope is that someone can tackle the person between mag changes. It's no guarantee to work and would save a few lives per mass shooting which are already rare.

omg they are peeeeeeppppplllllllleeeeeeeeeeessssssssssss. Appeal to emotion more. I'll happily say it again for you, saving a few random strangers isn't worth effecting millions of innocent gun owners.

You're not really affected tho

I've never been to a range, but I can't imagine its awful to reload a little more often. Seems pretty inconsequential compared to someone's life

So either way nothing much changes for you or Hendricks?

Nope, alot changes for me and Hendricks if the law changes. Nothing really changes for you though. I really should have posted better, it really only works one way.

Will is concerned about saving 5 minutes at the gun range.

doesn't seem like that's his only concern to me.

does it really seem like that to you?

5 minutes * millions of people who shoot each year. That's alot of man-hours. Seriously, do you understand exactly what you're asking and how little of an overall effect it would have?

I understand that. Just weird. Where is the line drawn where your "freedoms" are restricted vs. less gun deaths?

I think we all understand how little effect what we are asking would have on you physically yes. Pride, self esteem etc tho I suppose.

We make decisions and comprises on laws all the time knowing people will get killed or it will cost lives. We dont live in a perfect world where no one gets killed. Tough choices have to be made unfortunately and we can't limit everything than could possibly save a life here and there.

This is much better worded.

Convenience and enjoyment are both positive utility. Even if those were the absolute only thing that hicap magazines are good for, it vastly outweighs a couple (potentially) saved lives when that utility is spread out to millions of people.

dye,

should every american be banned from eating peanuts?