New York Gun Law

47 posts / 0 new

Can someone explain how reducing the capacity of a magazine from 10 to 7 does anything of value. Does 3 less shots do anything other than make gun haters feel good?

Marlin60
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2012 4:04 am

Comments

I don’t understand it either. Seems stupid. According to the new law, you can still legally posses a 10 round clip as long as you don’t load it with any more than 7 bullets.

It sounds like Cuomo haphazardly pushed through some weak ass legislation in order to score some political points for his upcoming Presidential bid. I hope it backfires on the effin Drama Queen.

If it were up to me, I would only allow semi-auto pistols and rifles with fixed magazines, and revolvers with fixed cylinders. They can only be reloaded one bullet at a time, and are more than adequate for self defense and hunting purposes.

organican's picture
organican
Joined:
Nov. 30, 2012 4:24 am
Quote organican:

I don’t understand it either. Seems stupid. According to the new law, you can still legally posses a 10 round clip as long as you don’t load it with any more than 7 bullets.

It sounds like Cuomo haphazardly pushed through some weak ass legislation in order to score some political points for his upcoming Presidential bid. I hope it backfires on the effin Drama Queen.

If it were up to me, I would only allow semi-auto pistols and rifles with fixed magazines, and revolvers with fixed cylinders. They can only be reloaded one bullet at a time, and are more than adequate for self defense and hunting purposes.

That's because they don't make 7 round magazines for most guns. I think you can find them for 1911s, but I don't know a whole lot of guns that have 7 round mags available besides some subcompacts.

If it were up to me and since it's not specified in any law, I would just modify my mag well to belt feed my rifle and keep a couple hundred rounds slung over my shoulder just to make a point.

I was all for compromise and limiting magazines to 10 rounds, but if they're going to take it even further, then screw compromise.

DowntheMiddle
Joined:
Nov. 7, 2011 10:18 am
Quote DowntheMiddle:
Quote organican:

I don’t understand it either. Seems stupid. According to the new law, you can still legally posses a 10 round clip as long as you don’t load it with any more than 7 bullets.

It sounds like Cuomo haphazardly pushed through some weak ass legislation in order to score some political points for his upcoming Presidential bid. I hope it backfires on the effin Drama Queen.

If it were up to me, I would only allow semi-auto pistols and rifles with fixed magazines, and revolvers with fixed cylinders. They can only be reloaded one bullet at a time, and are more than adequate for self defense and hunting purposes.

That's because they don't make 7 round magazines for most guns. I think you can find them for 1911s, but I don't know a whole lot of guns that have 7 round mags available besides some subcompacts.

If it were up to me and since it's not specified in any law, I would just modify my mag well to belt feed my rifle and keep a couple hundred rounds slung over my shoulder just to make a point.

I was all for compromise and limiting magazines to 10 rounds, but if they're going to take it even further, then screw compromise.

Belt clips will be outlawed. Belts with 6 rounds will be OK. Ammo is planned on getting a ration so the nuts don't overdose. Prescriptions can be refilled, magazines can be refilled. Anyone modifying the magazines can have them welded shut if caught.

The lynchers eventually quit lynching, too. Their way of live changed. No more BBQs with picture postcards to send to friends who you burned alive. Yeah, those were the days.

The family in Newton asked the governor to see their boy in the open casket. They wanted him to see his eyes and forehead with the lock of hair, because everything below his nose was blown away, just like the soldiers in Vietnam, these guns turn the target into ground meat. Gosh what fun.

Maybe you could get your local butcher to give you a pig to take home and place at a student desk and unload your couple hundred rounds to see what the first responders saw. Ask your butcher not to drain it though to get the full effect. Then multiply it by twenty for a real turn on.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote douglaslee:

The lynchers eventually quit lynching, too. Their way of live changed. No more BBQs with picture postcards to send to friends who you burned alive. Yeah, those were the days.

The family in Newton asked the governor to see their boy in the open casket. They wanted him to see his eyes and forehead with the lock of hair, because everything below his nose was blown away, just like the soldiers in Vietnam, these guns turn the target into ground meat. Gosh what fun.

Maybe you could get your local butcher to give you a pig to take home and place at a student desk and unload your couple hundred rounds to see what the first responders saw. Ask your butcher not to drain it though to get the full effect. Then multiply it by twenty for a real turn on.

Everytime you respond to a post you reduce your credibility. Expressing your emotional feelings is fine, but they have no relation to the OP. Start a thread on the horrors of being killed with a rifle, knife, or hammer, but trying to connect them to this original post is impossible.

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 5:12 am
Quote Marlin60:

Can someone explain how reducing the capacity of a magazine from 10 to 7 does anything of value. Does 3 less shots do anything other than make gun haters feel good?

What was never brought up in this hastily cast together legislation were weapons that can do ten times as much damage as an AR. The common shotgun. Seven rounds of 3" magnum 00Buck, 15 balls per round, equals 105, .33 cal projectiles per seven round tubular magazine. All of which can be discharged in less than three seconds and reloaded in less than another 1o seconds.

Liberal logic never ceases to amaze me. Pass useless laws, feel good.

"I sold all my guns yesterday"

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 5:12 am
Quote DowntheMiddle:
Quote organican:

I don’t understand it either. Seems stupid. According to the new law, you can still legally posses a 10 round clip as long as you don’t load it with any more than 7 bullets.

It sounds like Cuomo haphazardly pushed through some weak ass legislation in order to score some political points for his upcoming Presidential bid. I hope it backfires on the effin Drama Queen.

If it were up to me, I would only allow semi-auto pistols and rifles with fixed magazines, and revolvers with fixed cylinders. They can only be reloaded one bullet at a time, and are more than adequate for self defense and hunting purposes.

That's because they don't make 7 round magazines for most guns. I think you can find them for 1911s, but I don't know a whole lot of guns that have 7 round mags available besides some subcompacts.

If it were up to me and since it's not specified in any law, I would just modify my mag well to belt feed my rifle and keep a couple hundred rounds slung over my shoulder just to make a point.

I was all for compromise and limiting magazines to 10 rounds, but if they're going to take it even further, then screw compromise.

Your response proves that the law makes a difference. If you think that 7 rounds is too harsh compared to a 10 round limit then it obviously makes a difference. If it didn't then you wouldn't care less about a 3 round differnce.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

OK, when you draw the line at 10, or 7, explain the civilian purpose of these multi-bullet features. I understand deer hunters have a three bullet ethos. If you are after bear, I suppose you might need something bigger, but that is a very specific and rare type of use. I don't get the need for these clips in civilian use.

When it comes to personal protection, it becomes essential that we not license rapid fire weapons to be used in a state of fear. Even those living in rural locales do not need war weaponry to defend themselves from "intruders." Normal hunting rifles and target pistols will do the job if it needs doing.

The statistics on gun ownership and protection v. endangerment do not make me want to have a gun in my house. I have lived in plenty of 'questionable' neighborhoods where we did not install special security locks or post an armed and dangerous warning. I read the papers and see enough of the TV to know that the leading bleeding is an anecdotal impression rather than the big social picture, and I have seen violence beget violence in the minds of America as we imagine a world where we must wage wars and fight crime to have peace and safety. It is a delusional picture, a self-fulfilling prophecy.

As a hedge on a 911 call, since Darlin' says it will take 15 minutes for them to get to her place for example, someone trained in the use of their civilian piece can also be expected to act with restraint instead of blasting away. The point is to let the pros get there if at all possible. When it is not, the person defending his or her home may have to explain why they felt they had to do it, and the consequences matter. The so-called 'stand your ground' laws glorify the tragedy, and I want us to be aware that personal defense is not about vengeance and a lust to punish criminals. When you pull that trigger and kill a human being, you are part of the tragedy. You should know that and not forget it as you celebrate your 'victory.'

I can appreciate why some object to the use of the mass killing gore in a discussion of gun control policy, but I think they miss the point and the tone of the times. We are disgusted and have had it up to wherever it needs to be to STOP being bullied by the assholes of the NRA. That front for gun sales has discredited itself totally this time, and we are ready to move ahead with responsible gun owners and do something about this part of America's violence problem.

We want to talk about gun regulation, not really "control." We want to talk about safety, not "confiscation." But we also want to have war weaponry out of the hands of civilians and kept in well regulated and secured armories. We want mags and clips or whatever limited to a very few shots, and if target shooters want to use uncivil weapons, that use should be limited to secured sites with weapons that do not leave that site. Rules for transport can also be stringent.

Finally, gun owners and 2nd Amendment fans need to do something about the idiots who threaten to go crazy shooting if anyone comes to get their guns. People who make those threats and think in that way are too dangerous to be allowed to have guns. It is a real paradox for you all. If you cannot get those crazies who do not have an actual mental illness diagnosis but who are far more likely to go suicidal/murder out of fermented anger than someone who just hears voices, we may have to restrict everyone's 'right' to a gun.

Enough of the macho insecurity tough talk. Even in the Wild West they had real gun control in Dodge City.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm

I was wrong on the simulation. Pigs have thicker skin [aka pigskin] so a suckiling pig would closest represent a child's skin. [Adults have thicker skin than 6 year olds] So 3 suckilings young and still alive with one horizontal and two parallel perpendicuar would be the closest to a 6 year old to see what a military semi-automatic does to them. They had about 8 to 10 shots each. Noah had just turned 6 and his face from the nose was gone so maybe it only took two .229 shots from 10 feet away.

AR-15s are designed to kill humans young or old. To simulate what these do takes the closest to human, a pig. [Canibals called humans long pig, and pig valves can be transplanted as can swine flu] Since you enjoy these particular models you ought to experience the true purpose just like the mass murderers.

The common shotgun doesn't give them the chance to play soldier.

So is that what you use for quail? Kind of overkill imo.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Cuomo and the new York legislature, in their haste, forgot to limit the number of gang members that can participate in a drive by shooting, to, say, 7 per vehicle with a 2 vehicle limit on participation per drive by.

What will be the next step in the name of "gun control" when a looney sicko pulls another mass shooting. Oh, wait, I meant a former lynching redneck card carrying NRA republican. Certainly no moonbat biased stereotyping going on here, is there?

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 9:27 am

Darline: Don't get too worked up. As you can see from hanging around this board, there are a half dozen of the completely uninformed, another half dozen that think they are doing some good, and a hell of a lot more, that are actually Thomheads, that are starting to recognize that assault is a behavior, not a device.

Let this all go to the polls in 2014. In 1994 during the last great government "I will keep you safe by banning all magazines and black rifles" rant, produced a republican takeover in the house and senate. Forget the dull, unproveable, statistics being thrown about by both sides. Forget the emotional outbursts of the woefully ignorant comparing children to pigs. Instead, contact your representatives, let them know how you feel, and support the NRA to the best of your ability. I waited until president Santa Claus was speaking @ 11:11 A.M. and upgraded my annual membership to a lifetime membership. The phone wait was 16 minutes, but oh! so worth it.

Don't forget Saturday is........

http://gunappreciationday.com/

"I sold all my guns"

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 5:12 am
Quote darlinedarline1@aol.com:

Cuomo and the new York legislature, in their haste, forgot to limit the number of gang members that can participate in a drive by shooting, to, say, 7 per vehicle with a 2 vehicle limit on participation per drive by.

What will be the next step in the name of "gun control" when a looney sicko pulls another mass shooting. Oh, wait, I meant a former lynching redneck card carrying NRA republican. Certainly no moonbat biased stereotyping going on here, is there?

Obviously the solution is to issue more guns so more gang members can participate in drive-by shootings.

On the other hand, if no one made them for public consumption, perhaps we wouldn't have to be concerned about it. You'd have to join the army to steal one. Hide your gun your duffle bag when you were discharged instead of turning it in.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I can still remember the day Reagan got shot. He was surrounded by secret service men armed and trained specifically for protecting the President with their guns. Some "moonbat" with a 22 shoots up the crowd. More guns wasn't the answer that day either.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:

I can still remember the day Reagan got shot. He was surrounded by secret service men armed and trained specifically for protecting the President with their guns. Some "moonbat" with a 22 shoots up the crowd. More guns wasn't the answer that day either.

Nor was banning assault rifles and limiting magazine size.

Paleo-con
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Probably banning pistols as Canada does, would have increased Reagan's chances of not getting shot.

You can have a gun in Canada...limited to a size that can't be hidden...and entirely designed for purposes of hunting rather than over-kill. They seem to have a problem reaching anywhere near the U.S. homicide rate. That's probably a good thing.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Love your site, Redwing. It is good to see Texas taking a leading roll in resisting the unconstitutional steps odictator is taking. By restricting responsible gun owners rights and thinking it will have some sort of effect on curtailing criminal, gang or lunatic use of guns to commit horrendous acts, is typical of moonbat logic.

When this fails and another Sandy Hook or Ft Hood is committed, what will bere their knee jerk, feel good reaction once again?

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 9:27 am

Thats easy. "We didn't go far enough"

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 5:12 am

Right! And the next level could encompass some sort of confiscation.

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 9:27 am

Like I said before, if you gun lovers don't clean up your own gun nuts, it could be that the rest of us will get tired of the hair-splitting and hermeneutics and just take them away. Hard to say how it will work out if we don't get better responses than you and Redneck have been posting. We might just decide that the 2nd is not what American 'exceptionalism' should be about. If other countries can have less gun violence than we do, we can follow their lead and do what they have done. The Constitution is sure not going to live or die on this crappy interpretation and death culture polemics.

There are far more important rights that gun violence puts at risk, so get out of NRA world and contribute to gun safety and sanity, or expect those who "don't understand" to do what you fear without caring too much about all the screaming and shouting. It beats the shooting all to hell.

If you want to believe that we are ignorant do gooders rather than informed public policy advocates, enjoy the bar talk. I can appreciate why allowing any sanity and criticism to puncture your gun culture illusions would be a threat. Golly, I guess "assault" is what one would do with an automatic weapon of war. Excuse my sloppy terminology. Someone who knows the glossary is going to have to list all the military crap I want out of civilian hands. It can be done.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm

Chicago has strict gun laws and gun violence is out of control. Gun violence is down in Washington D.C. since the Heller case. But please, do not let facts get in the way of your Progressive ideas.

Marlin60
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2012 4:04 am

It's kind of funny how the conservatives on this sight won't accept modest regulations when it comes to their guns but a few months back they were all on the bandwagon of pushing regulations on the Constitutional right to vote. The same goes for the liberals who wouldn't accept any kind of regulations when it came to voting but are pushing for regulations on guns.

Of course the inherent dangers involved with guns versus the dangers of fraudulent voting are miles apart. Tens of thousands will abuse their gun priviledges where as tens of tens will abuse their voting rights.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

Since when have the current gun regulations had any effect on gun violence committed by criminals. If one has to prove he is who he is and is eligible to puchase a gun, which is already the case, why should he not have to prove he is who he is and is eligible to vote?

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 9:27 am
Quote darlinedarline1@aol.com:

Since when have the current gun regulations had any effect on gun violence committed by criminals. If one has to prove he is who he is and is eligible to puchase a gun, which is already the case, why should he not have to prove he is who he is and is eligible to vote?

I'll use your gun regulation logic. Criminals will get fake documentation to obtain a gun so what's the point in regulating it? Fraudulent voters will get fake documentation to register to vote so what's the point of regulating it? I want gun owners, including myself to have to jump through hoops in order to have access to something as dangerous as a gun and I want limits on what kinds of guns I can purchase or obtain. I don't want voters to have to jump through hoops to have their voice heard via the voting booth. Guns are toys for most non law enforcement personel where as I don't see the importance of voting in a democracy as a toy. Big difference.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

You want to restrict law abiding, responsible gun owners and buyers from being able to buy certain types of guns and admit that this will not prevent criminals from obtaining them fraudulently, which is already evident? But it is ok to have fraudulent voting? Hmmm...

Guns are not toys to responsible gun owners, but voting is so important that it is not necessary to take a few steps to prevent voter fraud. Typical flawed moonbat logic.

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 9:27 am

Voter fraud is all but non existent while gun abuse is rampant. If gun abuse was as common as voter fraud then there wouldn't be a problem. Hunting is no longer a need but a sport. That makes a hunter's gun a toy for sport. Almost all guns among civilians are used as toys and it's not very often that a gun is actually used for self defense. Children are dying every day due to guns. Whether it be through negligence or malice. The few instances of known voter fraud haven't killed anybody. Anyibody who thinks that the inconvenience of gun regulations is more important than dead children is the real moonbat.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

Please stop with the "it's all for the children" crap. That is Obama's stunt and was embarassing to watch yesterday. Just as when he lied about SS and Medicare as he is surrounded by blue hairs.

Remove the gang-bangers from the under the 19 year olds, that Obama calls children, the death rate drops to numbers that are very low. Arguing statisitcs on this board is next to impossible so I will leave it there.

How about the simple point that fraudlent voters can change elections that will allow people to vote laws into effect that will affect my rights ae a non-fraudlent gun owner?

In most states, to purchase a firearm from a store,

I have to show a state issued permit or a letter permitting me to buy, obtained from my local sherriff.

Show photo ID and the permit when applying for or purchasing a firearm

A call is made to the State giving my ID information and the serial number of the gun to the state before I can pay my purchase.

Give me a tiny fraction of those requirements for voters and I will agree with you.

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 5:12 am

The point is that gun regulations have not stop gun violence.

Got any stats on children dying through negligence or malice from gun? I'll help ya with this.

"While the gun banners like to say 10000 children a day, 500 a day, or some other absurd number of children die in firearms accidents, the Center For Disease Control counts death certificates and says the true number killed in a gun accident is less than one and a half a week. And even that total includes 25 to 30 suicides that coroners have chosen to list as “accidents.”

You can click on the image on the left, where the total is given as 75, or go to theCDC’s WISQUARS site and confirm this chart. Scroll to the bottom, change to “top 20″ causes of death, set the age range to <1 to 15 and let the program do its thing. You will get a pair of vertical charts, and click on the "unintentional deaths" box to get a chart just like this one."

http://extranosalley.com/?p=17492

I would speculate that here is way more voter fraud than children dying from guns by what ever reasons. But progressive lefty moonbats don't want to admit that. Isn't one death too many? Isn't one voter fraud too many? Oh, wait, nobody is dying from voter fraud. That only starts when those elected by voter fraud start pushing their agends of pro-guns and no regulations for law abiding citizens. Wait that is not the case noe, is it? Odicitator was re-elected and is pushing an anti-gun agenda. Hmmm... More children die from drowning in swimming pools.

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 9:27 am

Maybe we should conduct an experiment. Get Canada to enact U.S. gun legislation and see if their murder rates rise to equal ours.

To catch up to the U.S., the Canadian homicide rate would only have to triple.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

So what's an acceptable number of accidental deaths of children? 10 a year? 5 a year? Redwing or D, please tell me what you find acceptable?

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

You ain't gonna prevent all deaths even children's.

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 9:27 am

No, who said we could? The point is to reduce them. I think 7 is too many, but we always have to compromise sanity with insanity here. Those who want more guns as the answer are always with us. If they want to arm the teachers, why not the teenagers. A whole classroom of pistol packing teens is the way to defend against an attacker.

Hyperbole is not all that useful when we are talking gun safety and regulation, not confiscation. Why do we have so much more of these mass rage murder suicides and violence in general than others, and isn't it a problem of pressing concern to us? It is not enough to say that we have always been a violent culture, although true. Our myth is that Norman Rockwell picture or the Little House on the Prairie. Yoeman farmers and pioneers. Even our gunfighters become mythic figures and we do imagine Billy the Kid as a nice boy, but misunderstood. We have the honorable gangs who robbed the evil banks to give the money to the people about to lose their homes.

I want to de-militarize our police too. If we can have a change of culture and law like we did with smoking, it would be a big step toward removing the argument that the cops have to face assault weapons and need to have military firepower, etc. They have to get over the idea that their job is to keep us under control and afraid to cross "the line." Instead, they are there to give us essential support in our community security and to cooperate with the citizenry they serve. Up close and personal instead of behind metal shields and locked and loaded would help a lot with our everyday experience of threat and suspicion transformed into a basic feeling of security among fellow citizens.

The NY gun law is not perfect. It is what it is, but the problem is what it is too. Gun owners need to be part of the solution instead of the problem. How many cartridges are enough?

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm

You're right but that doesn't mean you take all sensible avenues possible to TRY and keep them safe. That's all I've ever asked for as a parent. Try to keep them safe through any means possible. I'm not going to let inconveniences trump safety. I hate the fact that when I fly I have to put my toothpast, shampoo, etc. in an absurd quantity into a see through baggie but I realize that for the safety of everyone it's worth the inconvenience. I hate having to take my shoes off as well. I really think it's stupid but if it adds an element of safety to those around me then so be it.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

I will support your argument if you can show me how any laws would have prevented this incident. As has been previously stated ad nauseam, more than a half dozen laws were broken in the Sandy Hook shooting both by the mother and her son. Evil exists, and you all better know it will show it's face again.

I still support the ability for, upon their choice, a teacher, principal, school liason officer, or better yet, all three having the ability to gain quick access to a safely stored firearm. I also support emergency exits, or kick out windows, on the first floor of all schoolrooms for starters. Hundreds of teachers have already signed up for free training and thousands will follow after the first batch is in force. Now we need a way to get kids out of the classroom trap they find themselves in in incidents that put them in harms way. Remember, it's for the children.

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 5:12 am

Yes let's put all of the solutions on the backs of the victims and leave the gun owners alone. We wouldn't want to inconvenience responsible gun owners in any way. Maybe they should require all schools to have locked vaults instead of classrooms that will only open with a special code that has to be punched in from the inside. No windows allowed. No recess and lunch will be brought with you and eaten in class. The teachers can then lock and load their Ak's and escort the kids out to the bus.

We can have armed guards walking the hallways and anyone caught inside without a hall pass will be shot on site. Shoot first and ask questions later for the safety of all. Or maybe we could make it really difficult to get access to weapons so that only those of us who really are responsible and have a legitimate reason to posess one will take the time and effort needed to get them. Of course this doesn't deter criminals but there aren't too many criminals wanting to shoot up schools and malls. There's no money in it for them.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

Before any more silly platitudes, please first answer my question.

"How any laws would have prevented this incident".

As to your analogy regarding your airline safety, that does not seem to bother you at all.

Super tight precautions such as, armed air marshal security on flights, sealed cabin doors with rules that prevent the pilot from ever leaving the cabin in threating situations, armed pilots, very tight passenger screening, etc. Are you saying that security system necessary for your kids to fly once a year, but not necessary in the schools they attend on a daily basis?

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 5:12 am

Laws on what kinds of weapons are available and their bullet capacity can easily save lives. If you can fit 10 magazines in your pockets and they can hold 6 bullets each you can potentially kill 59 people and save one for yourself. If you can fit 10 magazines in your pockets and they can hold 12 bullets each you can potentially kill 119 people and save one for yourself. Simple math.

As far as security in schools goes I'm all for it but that alone isn't enough. It's got to be a combination of security and common sense gun regulations. You can't put it all on the shoulders of the victims simply because it's "inconvenient" for gun owners to do anything else.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote darlinedarline1@aol.com:

You ain't gonna prevent all deaths even children's.

Conservative logic, if the first step on the first day fails to completely solve an issue it is not worthy. Any tax increase that can't solve the deficit is worthless. Seat belts don't stop all deaths is communism. Helmets don't stop all motorcycle deaths so that is Nazism.

Which tells me you have lost the debate. If you believe any progress against gun murders is not 100% effective therefore no progress should be made to prevent gun enthusiasts murdering children, students, people etc then you are an idiot.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm

Why isn't more attention, especially the lapdog media, being focused on the cause of people like Lanza going over the edge? That is a common theme in most of the mass shootings. ALL of the shooters were on, or had just stopped taking, some sort of psychiatric medication with side effects that could cause violent madness. Instead of taking a backseat to the anti-gun idiots agenda of gun control, the media and politicios grandstanding against guns, maybe these pharmaceuticals and their manufacurers (big pharma) should be scrutinized more. Could it be they aren't because they have a better lobby and own more politicans than the gun lobby?

David Kupelian has written an article that points out that this crucial bit of information is not being exposed. Why?

http://mobile.wnd.com/2013/01/the-giant-gaping-hole-in-sandy-hook-reporting/#gKTVUYpXKsaXkKt1.99

For leftist progressives to continue to push their anti-gun agenda of draconian restrictions on legal, responsible gun owners and even pretend that as a solution to gun violence is deceptive or delusional on their part. I think they know better.

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 9:27 am

P76, "Which tells me you have lost the debate. If you believe any progress against gun murders is not 100% effective therefore no progress should be made to prevent gun enthusiasts murdering children, students, people etc then you are an idiot."

You are the IDIOT thinking gun "ethusiasts" are the ones murdering children and others. Read above, dipshit.

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 9:27 am

Very few progressives have an anti-gun agenda. I sure as hell don't. I'm a gun owner and a very responsible one at that. No, people confuse anti-gun agendas with anti-violence and pro-life agendas. Of course if you are pro-life before and AFTER birth it doesn't count.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

Then maybe this should be approached from a more realistic angle. Like examining the connection of psychotic drugs and people like Lanza et al. Did you even bother to read the article? Kupelian has a valid point IMO.

The other issue of gang violence and gun crimes is NOT going to be solved or addressed by punishing legal, responsible gunowners. It has already been admitted that criminals do NOT care what laws there are.

It has already been proven that gun violence in Houston (with similar demographics and problems) is 1/3 that of Chicago. The underlying reason being that people (ordinary law-abiding citizens) are armed. Any logical and intelligent person can see this. But I am convinced that there are no logical or intelligent people here.

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 9:27 am

I absolutely agree with addressing the mental health side of things. It's a priority in my mind but it too isn't going to be fool proof. Nothing we do whether it's gun regulations, mental health checks, security measures is going to be fool proof. Does that mean that we don't address all of the above? Once again I'll remind you that my concerns about this subject have little to do with criminals. Criminals will find any way possible to pursue criminal activities. This , for me, is about the average citizen who is either irresponsible or "snaps" into a rage. How many school shooters are criminals?

I know many people who refuse to try drugs of any kind because of the potential consequences. Without those potential legal consequences they probably would have tried and got hooked on drugs of some sort. Laws and regulations can work with the average citizen. It has indirectly saved many lives. Gun regulations can do the same thing.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

Banning firearms or magazines that hold more than 10 rounds is not going to stop gun violence. The columbine shooting happened during the last gun ban, did that stop the criminal kids who broke multiple laws before they starting shooting from breaking a few more during the shooting?

Yes other countries have less gun violence than the U.S. has but they have more violent crime. in the u.s. the amount of gun deaths is less than one percent of the population. If I remember the numbers right the violent crime rate in the U.S is somewhere around 400 per hundred thousand this low rate does not even make the top ten most violent countries, in England it Is around 2,000 per hundred thousand. Yes they have lower gun deaths but more violent crime. Everywhere strict gun control laws are in place they crime rate goes up not down. because the criminals understand that if people cannot fight back they are less likely to get hurt in the process of committing the crime.

why do you think they criminals go after schools, churches and malls and not police stations?

I believe the politicians, actors, and activists should lead by example and give up their armed protection, their lives and the lives of their children are no more important than any others person’s life. They difference is that I have to pay for my protection and theirs. They try and take my ability to protect myself and family away from me, why enjoying the tax payer provided protection of the secret service, capital police, state police and city police.

The response time to any crime for police is about 5 to 15 minutes which does not sound like a long time, however the first fire fight I was in during my time in the marines lasted 2 minutes.

Shootings stopped by police response is about 14 deaths, shootings stopped by CCW holders is 2 deaths a stat you will not hear on the media.

I believe we should be allowed to buy any weapon that the military or police have access to but I also believe that in order to purchase the weapon you should have a background check and a training class on how the weapon works. This training should include fire arms safety, storage, maintenance of the weapon and shooting the weapon to include a qualifying with said weapon to prove you know how to use the weapon.

firearm owner
Joined:
Jan. 18, 2013 9:52 am

New York lawmakers, moving quickly in the wake of a wave of drunk driving deaths, have established a 10.5 ounce limit for all alcoholic beverage containers. New Yorker's are expected to immediately dispose of all beverage in excess of 10.5 ounces per container or risk being charged with misdemeanor alcohol possession. lawmakers stated they have no plans to limit the number of containers that can legally be possessed at this time. Mayor Bloomberg, long a supporter of container control, applauded the legislature for their quick action. When asked how the 10.5 ounce limit was arrived at, Governor Cuomo responded, 7 shots.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/hit_us_with_your_best_shot_andy_5rxZg...

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 5:12 am
Quote polycarp2:

Probably banning pistols as Canada does, would have increased Reagan's chances of not getting shot.

Sigh... pistols are banned in DC, just as in Canada. How did that help Reagan's chances of not getting shot? Oh, that's right, it didn't help; as he did get shot.

Paleo-con
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Damn Redwing, that was funny. Congratulations for breaking the long conservative comedic drought, I mean in creating comedy not just presenting the material. But 7 shots on a reduced container law, nice.

Now lets get down to firearm owner's assertions about gun laws and violent crime. I am particularly intrigued by the idea that what makes Houston safer than Chicago is the number of citizens packing. I am sure you could get the gang culture of Chicago to 'buy' into this very quickly. It is always interesting to compare cities and see if they share enough in common to make the observation about what we think is being measured. Perspectives on who needs a gun and under what circumstances vary. Are you Easy Rawlins or Jack Cassidy. Is the law your friend or foe?

Houston has had some progressive urban leadership, unusual for Texas. Chicago, well I love it like I love Italy.

BTW, I do appreciate the thinking about the causes, and my first question is why do you think criminals think logically about who has a gun or where there are not guards? Few of these shooters are planning to survive. It does not have to take them very long to do a lot of damage with military weapons beyond what they could with hunter tools. What constitutes sports shooting and how those toys are to be made safe for civil society is a separate discussion. We come down to what our vigilante pistol packers are going to "need."

I consider the argument that the criminals don't care about the law falacious on its face. It does not matter, and we would even expect the criminals to act in violation of the law. We want to make it a crime to possess these military weapons, not just to use them in a criminal act. They have no possible civilian utility and "gun collectors" should be limited to permenantly disabled weapons of collector class. I am open to the sports shooting policies on safety. Possession of any military grade weapon for sporting use must include its storage in a secure armory rather than civilian custody other than for specific events.

We do allow the police to have weaponry up to criminal grade. We just don't have the Baker Street Irregulars armed and ready to be the intermediate force unless they are well-regulated with a chain of command and professionalism. It is not just about how to operate the weapon. It is how to handle a human conflict and get it right. It is how to make things better rather than worse when you intervene.

I think we need to do a lot of work on our culture of violence and the mythology around the gun in America. We have to get over our obsession with righteous violence much like we need to lose our obsession with sexual performance and find a positive and mature integration of everything about vulnerability. We can link it to our fear of Terrorism as if we were the victim rather than the perp.

Within that larger context, I will stipulate that the NY gun laws are not the last word on gun safety or the prevention of the killing of innocent children. They may be barely a 'first word.' I repeat, could we please have people who believe in the responsible and safe ownership of firearms please help weed out the extremists, the paranoid and the enraged from your larger advocacy groups so we can find informed solutions to gun violence and violence as well. If all we get is D screaming about how stupid liberals, or 'moonbats' are, why should we give a shit if she does not like what we come up with? If we need experts to revise our clumbsy efforts, give us the help you think would make the laws better.

If alll you have is "this won't solve the problem" we will take half a loaf for now. If you want us to believe that our reforms will make things worse, try not to go NRA cold dead hand on us. Otherwise, remember that you had your chance to be part of the solution.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm

More gun ban, restrictions and or registrations will not solve the problem of the gun violence. That approach has been tried throughout history and it has always ended with governmental genocide on the unarmed populous.

Criminals do not and will not follow the law that is why they are criminals. I have no problem restricting firearm ownership to those without criminal background of a violent nature. However, that brings up the situation of paying their debt to society when they went to prison. Once they are released are they not square with society again? I believe that they should have more extensive back ground check to include if you are judged to be mentally unstable because that can lead you to do some pretty bad things. However a few nut jobs that run in and shoot up a school should not over ride my right to buy any fire arm that I not the government deem necessary. It is the same way with cars just because a small percentage of people drive drunk and kill more people than fire arms, does not mean that no one can drive again ever. or be restricted to mopeds because they are small enough to not cause any damage.

DRC2 you are correct that few of the shooters are planning to survive just like suicide bombers but they want to inflict as much damage as possible before they are taken down. If they wanted to die quickly but cannot do it themselves they use suicide by cop where you force the police officer to kill you only person harmed is the suicide victim.

My question for you DRC2 is why do you think so poorly of the millions of legal gun owners in America that will never use their weapon for anything other than target practice? What have they done to deserve so much mistrust from the progressives?

Like I proposed early, background checks, mandatory training classes to show how the weapon works, is maintained and how to properly shot the weapon. Training class should end with a qualifying shoot to prove you know how the weapon works and can use it safely if you fail you cannot buy the weapon.

As far as my assertion that less guns breads more crime there are studies and videos about this very fact where the person doing the study talks to criminals in prison that state they pick people that cannot fight back in order to make sure they get away without getting hurt themselves.

firearm owner
Joined:
Jan. 18, 2013 9:52 am

Currently Chatting

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system