Yahoo/AP: NY seals 1st state gun laws since Newtown massacre

[DjTj]

Question: Should this gun be banned?

http://www.impactguns.com/data/defau..._%20811062.jpg

Yes, if the people of a state believe that the benefits of having this type of gun (it makes it easier to kill criminals in self-defense? it's more fun at the shooting range?) are outweighed by the negatives (it makes it easier to kill innocents? it looks scary?).

[skinsfan_1215]

Pretty much my point. I was hoping a few people would have the chance to freak out over it before it was outed as a 22 though.

Oh, and those bullet/capacity laws are stupid too. 10 rounds is a common capacity. How many law abiding citizens are going to get screwed over that one?

I agree the 10 to 7 limit is really dumb. There are probably hundreds of thousands of gun owners in NY that would have to buy new magazines in order to comply. Actually might have been thrown in there for gun companies since people will have to buy new mags.

Also, looks like you got your wish anyway

Yes, if the people of a state believe that the benefits of having this type of gun (it makes it easier to kill criminals in self-defense? it's more fun at the shooting range?) are outweighed by the negatives (it makes it easier to kill innocents? it looks scary?).

[SkinsWarrior81]

I agree the 10 to 7 limit is really dumb. There are probably hundreds of thousands of gun owners in NY that would have to buy new magazines in order to comply. Actually might have been thrown in there for gun companies since people will have to buy new mags.

Also, looks like you got your wish anyway

7 round capacity eliminates all 1911 clones... which is why I think they may have chosen it.

[artmonkforHOF]

Like the mental health provision. Ok with the minor alteration of "military-style" weapon. Bullet sales database (and background checks), as well as making ownership of a high cap magazine a crime, seem to fall somewhere between unnecessary and stupid in my opinion.

I agree that at the moment, some of those measures seem unnecessary, but the one thing that hasn't happened yet in a mass shooting is where a suspect gets away from the scene. If that does ever happen-doesn't even have to be a mass shooting-, something as insignificant as a empty magazine could be traced back to the purchaser to help identify the suspect or prosecute.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Pretty much my point. I was hoping a few people would have the chance to freak out over it before it was outed as a 22 though.

You do of course realise that an M-16 .223 (which that pic is not) is only slightly larger than a .22, the difference is that it uses a 30.06 casing fir high velocity and range. BTW, that .223 will tear you to pieces. Oh, and we were trained to use it in semi-automatic mode, and when we used full-auto it was in three round bursts. Blasting through an entire magazine on full auto is for suppressive fire and guys who think they're Rambo.

[Mad Mike]

I agree the 10 to 7 limit is really dumb. There are probably hundreds of thousands of gun owners in NY that would have to buy new magazines in order to comply. Actually might have been thrown in there for gun companies since people will have to buy new mags.

Also, looks like you got your wish anyway

Thing is, that not every gun is even available with a smaller clip. The Ruger P89 is a ten year old 9mm full sized handgun with a 15 round capacity. There are no 7 round clips available, nor will there ever be. In fact, the *low capacity* variant clip is 10 rounds. So someone with such a gun who has lawfully and responsibly owned it for years would have to sell it.

[Jumbo]

Registration is tantamount to disenfranchisement. I wonder how the courts will feel about it.

I dunno amigo, I feel like an agent whose dossier is filling rapidly on someone hitherto off the radar. <insert dead grin smiley>

---------- Post added January-15th-2013 at 10:14 AM ----------

It's a .22LR, good for killing squirrels. That's about it. So no.

Cmon dude.You kow there's a lot of people who kill people professionally laughing at that as its stated---besides, it's a most desirable caliber for zombies.

[HaveFaith]

I will go a little (OK maybe pretty far) off topic here.

Would you all be OK with a governmental ban on Automobiles with V8 engines? What if it were "proven" that cars with V8 engines were more likely to result in death when involved in multi-car collisions?

This is about saving lives right?

Maybe I am weird on this, but I fail to see the real difference between a gun murder and a stabbing murder or a bombing murder or intentionally running someone down with a car. "Evil people" will use the tools at their disposal, to cause harm. A side effect of "gun control" legislation is to limit the tools at the disposal of the "good" law abiding people.

To the OP thank you for creating this thread. It is good to read multiple opinions on the issue (even if I disagree with some of them.) perhaps I need a shift in my perspective.

[MattFancy]

I will go a little (OK maybe pretty far) off topic here.

Would you all be OK with a governmental ban on Automobiles with V8 engines? What if it were "proven" that cars with V8 engines were more likely to result in death when involved in multi-car collisions?

This is about saving lives right?

Maybe I am weird on this, but I fail to see the real difference between a gun murder and a stabbing murder or a bombing murder or intentionally running someone down with a car. "Evil people" will use the tools at their disposal, to cause harm. A side effect of "gun control" legislation is to limit the tools at the disposal of the "good" law abiding people.

To the OP thank you for creating this thread. It is good to read multiple opinions on the issue (even if I disagree with some of them.) perhaps I need a shift in my perspective.

I see your point, but that's why we have speed limits and seat belt laws.

[skinsfan_1215]

Cmon dude.You kow there's a lot of people who kill people professionally laughing at that as its stated---besides, it's a most desirable caliber for zombies.

Zombies aside, if someone tried a mass shooting with a .22LR there would be a lot more injuries than deaths. It's not very effective unless you hit a vital organ.

[DjTj]

I will go a little (OK maybe pretty far) off topic here.

Would you all be OK with a governmental ban on Automobiles with V8 engines? What if it were "proven" that cars with V8 engines were more likely to result in death when involved in multi-car collisions?

Yes, people are not allowed to buy military-style tanks because they will destroy the roads if driven on them. We are not allowed to drive rocket-powered cars because they go to fast and shoot a ball of flaming gas at cars behind them.

If a V8 engine is somehow found to make cars significantly more dangerous then yes, of course we should ban them. There is no constitutional right to own whatever car you want.

---------- Post added January-15th-2013 at 01:36 PM ----------

Maybe I am weird on this, but I fail to see the real difference between a gun murder and a stabbing murder or a bombing murder or intentionally running someone down with a car. "Evil people" will use the tools at their disposal, to cause harm. A side effect of "gun control" legislation is to limit the tools at the disposal of the "good" law abiding people.

Are the guns that "evil people" use for mass murder different from the guns that "good people" use for self-defense? To perpetrate a mass murder, an automatic or semiautomatic rifle with a high-capacity drum is probably the most effective weapon. To stop a murderer, a shotgun might be best or a concealed handgun that the attacker can't see. Or a well-placed sniper round.

A lot of people are pointing out inconveniences that this law will cause for gun owners. But I don't see anyone pointing out a need for the guns that are being banned.

[twa]

whatever floats their boat

is this illegal there then?

12+ capacity

I do like the mental one

---------- Post added January-15th-2013 at 12:48 PM ----------

A lot of people are pointing out inconveniences that this law will cause for gun owners. But I don't see anyone pointing out a need for the guns that are being banned.

Need has no bearing on rights

[Sticksboi05]

I will go a little (OK maybe pretty far) off topic here.

Would you all be OK with a governmental ban on Automobiles with V8 engines? What if it were "proven" that cars with V8 engines were more likely to result in death when involved in multi-car collisions?

This is about saving lives right?

Maybe I am weird on this, but I fail to see the real difference between a gun murder and a stabbing murder or a bombing murder or intentionally running someone down with a car. "Evil people" will use the tools at their disposal, to cause harm. A side effect of "gun control" legislation is to limit the tools at the disposal of the "good" law abiding people.

To the OP thank you for creating this thread. It is good to read multiple opinions on the issue (even if I disagree with some of them.) perhaps I need a shift in my perspective.

How many times will we pretend that comparing cars and guns is realistic?

[Popeman38]

Yes, people are not allowed to buy military-style tanks because they will destroy the roads if driven on them. We are not allowed to drive rocket-powered cars because they go to fast and shoot a ball of flaming gas at cars behind them.

If a V8 engine is somehow found to make cars significantly more dangerous then yes, of course we should ban them. There is no constitutional right to own whatever car you want.

What if it was a car with a conversion kit to make it appear "military style"? "Military style" only means cosmetic. There is no "military style" functionality to an AR-15. It is in no way equal to an M-4/M-16. There is no automatic fire, there is no burst fire. It is a semi-automatic civilian version of the M-16 (notice the word CIVILIAN?) An AR-15 fires what size round? .223 (a 22 long rifle fires a .222 round, hmmmm). We ALREADY have restrictions in place to prevent people from buying military weapons. So now, I can buy a .22 bolt action rifle and do the EXACT damage an AR-15 does. This debate needs MEANINGFUL proposals. What NY is doing isn't going to do anything to impact Sandy Hook type events. But I bet they feel good about themselves.

[Sticksboi05]

What if it was a car with a conversion kit to make it appear "military style"? "Military style" only means cosmetic. There is no "military style" functionality to an AR-15. It is in no way equal to an M-4/M-16. There is no automatic fire, there is no burst fire. It is a semi-automatic civilian version of the M-16 (notice the word CIVILIAN?) An AR-15 fires what size round? .223 (a 22 long rifle fires a .222 round, hmmmm). We ALREADY have restrictions in place to prevent people from buying military weapons. So now, I can buy a .22 bolt action rifle and do the EXACT damage an AR-15 does. This debate needs MEANINGFUL proposals. What NY is doing isn't going to do anything to impact Sandy Hook type events. But I bet they feel good about themselves.

I agree the magazine restriction is like, uh, what? Best part of the law is the mental health provision.