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

[martytheman]

I was going to say... if you shoot someone with a .22 MOST of the time it doesn't go in and out like larger rounds will... it'll either get into a vein or artery and ride it for a while or it'll bounce around inside the body.

I'd much rather be shot in the leg with a .45 than a .22.

ballistics, how do they work again??
Do you have any idea of the kinetic energy a round from a .45 to your leg would bring vs a .22?

[Heisenberg]

I'm assuming this thread has also turned into the debate about Obama's gun control initiative?

Anyway, I'm thinking that O fully expects the AWB portion of this legislation to eventually get removed so that the R's feel as though they have "won" something. I'm definitely fine with fixing the background check loopholes and the anti-trafficking portions of this proposal though.

[mikered30]

I read over the 23 executive actions Obama made and not one of them would have stopped the shootings in CT. Actually a lot of them sound like fluff pieces.

[Busch1724]

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 ----------


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.

On top of that, you do have to register your car yearly in most states.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I read over the 23 executive actions Obama made and not one of them would have stopped the shootings in CT. Actually a lot of them sound like fluff pieces.

You do of course realize that we don't take legal action to stop one crazy person, or base law on a single isolated event, they are the exceptional circumstances which cannot be prevented (case in point the Ft Knox shooter). These actions are taken to help curb the 11,000 OTHER gun related deaths each year. And that quite frankly is the LAST time I'm going to point that out!

[AsburySkinsFan]

Here's an interesting video I came across.
It is a look at the 2nd Amendment as a whole and the history of gun control.
....not sure why it isn't embedding the video even with the tags.
http://youtu.be/TIAxafRMVBg

[mikered30]

You do of course realize that we don't take legal action to stop one crazy person, or base law on a single isolated event, they are the exceptional circumstances which cannot be prevented (case in point the Ft Knox shooter). !

. Megans law, Brady Bill (which was statistically a failure), Kristen's Law, Lindbergh law, and several more laws were passed based on a single event.

I am still not sure about the potential ban on high capacity mags. If I have one, am I supposed to destroy it, turn it in the cops, or I just wont be allowed to buy any if Congress passes the law? As will it be illegal to buy or illegal to own (same goes with "assault" weapons)? During the assault weapon ban, it only made it illegal to buy assault weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment, not illegal to own ones that were grandfathered in. If the ban would not have expired in 2004, it was unlikely that his mother would have the bushmaster, but she still would have had the pistols. Instead of the bushmaster, she could have had a shotgun that he could have stolen. Either way he would have still killed the kids, but if got mental therapy this possibly never could have happened. The gun isn't the problem, it is the person that is pulling the trigger.

I feel like what Obama is pushing is a feel good law. He is using this executive power but it doesn't actually address what he signed today and how it would have stopped Lanza from his shooting spree. Criminals will always find the weapons they want. I believe that a weapons ban would work just as good as our war on drugs. We can have a ban on anything we want but as long as there is somebody that wants something there will be someone willing to sell it to them. If they don't want to use an assault weapon, they can use any other weapon (shotgun, pistol, cross bow, fertilizer, pencil, car, hammer, C4, gasoline, etc, ) that isn't banned.

I am not sure where assault rifles show up in the FBI data base for murder, but there were 323 murders from "rifles" and almost 9,900 deaths from drunk drivers in the US. There were more murders by shotguns than "rifles" in 2011. I don't hear a big outcry to ban alcohol, but there is a big outcry to ban assault rifles. Obviously one murder from any weapon is one too many. I am all for reducing murders, but passing legislation that won't work gives a false sense of security.

[wysknz1]

I'm so glad you're not in a position to make these decisions.

The 2nd ammendment is to protect us from an out of control government. And it's pertnear there.

[Larry]

I am not sure where assault rifles show up in the FBI data base for murder, but there were 323 murders from "rifles" and almost 9,900 deaths from drunk drivers in the US.

Just pointing out that you're comparing intentional murders from rifles, and accidental deaths from drunk driving.

I think somebody earlier in the thread posted total gun deaths (including accidents and suicides) and total car deaths, and the numbers were pretty close.

[AsburySkinsFan]

. Megans law, Brady Bill (which was statistically a failure), Kristen's Law, Lindbergh law, and several more laws were passed based on a single event.

No, those are bills that use a name and a face to address a wider spread issue, there is a difference between that and the constant silliness we hear from the Right which screams at EVERY propsed gun law, "Well that wouldn't have stopped Sandy Hook!" Well no not every law is trying to do that, what's more is you'll never stop the maniac with a gun jst as the Ft Knox shooting shows.

---------- Post added January-16th-2013 at 11:49 PM ----------

The 2nd ammendment is to protect us from an out of control government. And it's pertnear there.

I always get a kick out of people who have the Red Dawn fantasy.

[twa]

never mind

[Redskins Diehard]

During the assault weapon ban, it only made it illegal to buy assault weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment, not illegal to own ones that were grandfathered in. If the ban would not have expired in 2004, it was unlikely that his mother would have the bushmaster, but she still would have had the pistols. Instead of the bushmaster, she could have had a shotgun that he could have stolen. Either way he would have still killed the kids, but if got mental therapy this possibly never could have happened. The gun isn't the problem, it is the person that is pulling the trigger.

I feel like what Obama is pushing is a feel good law. He is using this executive power but it doesn't actually address what he signed today and how it would have stopped Lanza from his shooting spree. Criminals will always find the weapons they want. I believe that a weapons ban would work just as good as our war on drugs. We can have a ban on anything we want but as long as there is somebody that wants something there will be someone willing to sell it to them. If they don't want to use an assault weapon, they can use any other weapon (shotgun, pistol, cross bow, fertilizer, pencil, car, hammer, C4, gasoline, etc, ) that isn't banned.

I am not sure where assault rifles show up in the FBI data base for murder, but there were 323 murders from "rifles" and almost 9,900 deaths from drunk drivers in the US. There were more murders by shotguns than "rifles" in 2011. I don't hear a big outcry to ban alcohol, but there is a big outcry to ban assault rifles. Obviously one murder from any weapon is one too many. I am all for reducing murders, but passing legislation that won't work gives a false sense of security.

I think one other thing about the previous assault weapon ban was that it was also still legal to purchase weapons that were no longer being manufactured. I remember going to the Y2K Gunshow(talk about a good people watching opportunity!) in Georgia and I wasn't all that familiar with the ban. Many of the vendors separated themselves by selling "Pre Ban" weapons for a significantly higher price. But they were available.

Lanza could have access to a weapon with the same relevant functionality with or without the ban. Maybe his mother would not have purchased one if it did not look like a military issue one...but the functionality would be the same.

I agree with your point about a false sense of security. All of the "Team Ban" folks think they are accomplishing something but they really aren't. And if you point that out they get righteous with the "gun nut" talk.

With respect to the Executive Orders that came out yesterday(I think). They don't look all that controversial to me. I like the "Appoint a Director of the ATF" order. Could that be filed under "note to self"? Or did it require an executive order? But seriously...the incentive to hire more school resource officers...does that mean placing armed 'security"/police officers in schools? That is what the school resource officer was when I was in school....a county police officer that was assigned to and worked in the school. I am just not sure if that is the standard definition of one or was unique to my locality.

[SkinsWarrior81]

No, those are bills that use a name and a face to address a wider spread issue, there is a difference between that and the constant silliness we hear from the Right which screams at EVERY propsed gun law, "Well that wouldn't have stopped Sandy Hook!" Well no not every law is trying to do that, what's more is you'll never stop the maniac with a gun jst as the Ft Knox shooting shows.

---------- Post added January-16th-2013 at 11:49 PM ----------



I always get a kick out of people who have the Red Dawn fantasy.

I get a kick out of people who have this idea that everyone has a Red Dawn fantasy. The 2nd amendment, and the intent behind it, were there so that the government cannot simply use a pen to alter society in a tyrannical way. No one has this delusion of blowing up tanks and the military attacking the civilian population. That whole notion is a fallacy. No one in the military is going to suddenly start killing disobeying citizens. However, the civilian ownership and proficiency with rifles, with high capacity magazines, presents at least a resistance in name to tyranny.
Just because you may not like it, does not mean I / we are not entitled to that right.

The knowledge of bloodshed is what keeps government in line in an underlying way, not insane Rambo heroics fantasized by random people who would be taking down the world's most advanced military.

[Burgold]

The knowledge of bloodshed is what keeps government in line in an underlying way, not insane Rambo heroics fantasized by random people who would be taking down the world's most advanced military.

You think government is in line and not a bunch of spoiled, misbehaving, corrupt crooks and tyrants? You think the government is afraid and toeing a careful and responsible line?

Just how many times have you bought the Brooklyn Bridge

[DC9]

ballistics, how do they work again??
Do you have any idea of the kinetic energy a round from a .45 to your leg would bring vs a .22?

Yes. Yes I do. And as I said, I'd rather be shot with a .45 than a .22... full disclosure, I am a former Army Ranger and I've personally seen the difference between large caliber and small caliber rounds and their effect on humans.

Now... would I rather be shot in the head with a .22 or a .45? Tough call, and there is more stuff for a .22 round to bounce off of inside the head (like... the skull), but I'd take my chances with a .22 because there is a less chance that half of my brain would be on the wall next to my body.

But in the leg it's the .45 all day long.

EDIT: And as mentioned somewhere in here before, the reason that the military went to less lethal rounds is that it took more people out of the fight (ideally). You shoot someone with a .45 (1911 or Thompson in WW2) or 30-06 (M1 Garand or 1903 or .30 cal water cooled machine gun in WW2) they are dead more often than not.

You shoot someone with 5.56 and 9mm in Vietnam through the present, you are IDEALLY taking an injured enemy and another enemy to aide that injured Soldier out of the fight. So it's 2 for 1 versus just icing one dude.

Now, that doesn't necissarily workout math-wise (which is why I say "Ideally") in an Asymetric Conflict, but that was the whole idea behind it.

EDIT 2: And just to give you one more example, I've seen (with my own eyes) a guy get shot in the right lower leg with a .22 and it came out of his hip and he died from internal bleeding a few days later. I've seen guys shot in the mouth with a 7.62 and they were returned to duty within 5 days with some dental work and a swollen tongue. You pick your poison. Obviously, you would love to avoid getting shot all together