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

[Larry]

The fact the shooter could bring 20 pre-loaded clips didn't cross your mind?

And the guy at the target range can't?

[doctorshockalu]

You ever lived in an apartment with roaches?
ever try to get rid of the roaches?
While you fumigate, they go next door.
Doesn't hurt any of them.

It's an incredibly dense argument to ask "how's that working" when anyone knows they can simply take a little drive and come back with the weapons they need.

But you know that.
because to not know that you'd have to be incredibly ****ing stupid.

and i have faith in ya.

~Bang

My goodness.
It seems I've overestimated you.


Stricter more thorough background checks, closing private sales loopholes and allowing police to trace a criminal's weapons back to their sellers would go a long way toward solving many problems without having to ban anything.


There. Now you can remember my position in the future and save yourself all that ridiculous blustering.
I guess i could have done that right off the bat so there'd be no question, like you did when you made it clear that you're happy to see the police disarmed.


oops.. see how I did that? i took one statement you made, and extrapolated it into you wanting the police disarmed.

When you don't believe that and said nothing like that.

All you said was that you are happy that the gun companies will make sure it's easier for crooks to get guns than the police because they don't want their revenue streams disrupted.

~Bang

In your first quote you said they will get the guns somewhere else. Not sure how anyone would read that first post and understand you have a completely different viewpoint. As for the lame snide comments, you are too old for that nonsense.

[Jumbo]

As for the lame snide comments, you are too old for that nonsense.

"Snide" is fine here in most cases. Your highlighted comment isn't. Up to you to figure out why (reading the rule carefully can help). The track record (including breaks given) of your rule violations leaves no more leeway. You already have qualified for a permanent ban and are here due to our usual leniency. Your next misstep will likely be final, ES-wise. I'd rather people survive themselves here than not.

[doctorshockalu]

Most gun owners don't own 20 clips for the same gun because it is too expensive. Depending on the range, you have to buy their bullets so pre-loading wouldn't even be an option.

A psycho would have no problem buying 20+ clips and we would still have the same problem.

[Bang]

In your first quote you said they will get the guns somewhere else. Not sure how anyone would read that first post and understand you have a completely different viewpoint. As for the lame snide comments, you are too old for that nonsense.

it's not hard to figure out that individual places within the Union that have gun control laws have a hard time controlling any guns when their surrounding neighbor states have different laws that criminals can exploit, (and potentially have sellers willing to make the bet that crime pays.).
When Mayors of cities, police departments study these things and find out where the guns are coming from, they'e powerless to stop it.
Some of the lax loopholes and restrictions on law enforcement that have been lobbied into place by gun manufacturers make it practically impossible for any isolated place to follow the weill of their people and try to curb the flow of weapons.
SO, askin 'how's that workin'" for places like DC or NY or Chicago is a very dishonest argument, unless one really doesn't comprehend how easy it is to drive back and forth across state lines.

Background checks, putting the system to work and allowing the laws to be enforced more uniformly in an effort to aid law enforcement in getting to the bottom roots of illegal guns will go a long way to stem some of these problems, and will not result in more than a slight paperwork inconvenience for law abiding gun owners who want to shoot targets, hunt, protect the home, or just collect them to admire. Whatever reason they want the gun, it should not be denied to them so long as they pass the background checks.

we're never ever going to get a handle on all gun violence,, gang violence and lover's spats that turn violent, etc.. these will always happen. what we CAN do is try to cut back on the number of really bad people and crazies getting their hands on so many weapons legally.
I don't know if this sounds right to say, but it would be easier to stomach some of these mass shootings if the shooter had not gotten hold of their weapons legally. But they do, and they are who i think this latest wave of gun control cries are trying to eliminate.

~Bang

[doctorshockalu]

Bang, I agree with your last response but I'm still not sure how this NY law is going to help these issues brought up. The cosmetic part of the law will do absolutely nothing because it just makes it look less scary. The private sales background check is a good thing but not allowing assault weapons to be bought online causes the price to go up, nothing more (which I assume is the point). Changing clips from 10 bullets to 7 bullets does nothing to help gun violence especially since millions of 10 bullet clips are already in the US. Making it a misdemeanor crime for a 10 clip found in your home seems reasonable since most gun owners will gladly take the extra protection for a small legal risk. I question if the bullet database will be streamlined enough to be efficient but if there is a way it can work, I'm all for it.

But my biggest issue with the knee jerk reaction is found in the census data on gun violence.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/12s0310.pdf

Taking 2009's statistics we have the following.

It states that 359 deaths were from rifles. There were a total of 9,203 firearm deaths. Let's just assume all 359 deaths were from assault rifles (which obviously is not true).

359/9,203 = 3.9%

We are adding more layers of government to stop less than 4% of murders. Knives killed 521% more people in the same year. Why not apply laws to knives? It would be more statistically significant. Hence, why I consider this nothing more than a knee jerk reaction.

[mikered30]

No assault weapons ban in the current gun bill. It will have to be an amendment and it will get shot down.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...03-19-13-51-09

[Larry]

No assault weapons ban in the current gun bill. It will have to be an amendment and it will get shot down.

No pun intended?

[mikered30]

Correct, no pun intended. I guess we will have to wait for the next mass shooting to bring this up again, which is what we said last time.

[Corcaigh]

Based on a very recent incident here in suburban northern Virginia it's clear that attitudes, fear and perception of risk are a huge factor. The story emerging in the last few days here is that a widely liked teenager (who had been partying and was possibly drunk), dropped off by his friends in the early hours at the end of the street so they wouldn't wake the parents, entered the wrong house two doors down from where he lived (cookie-cutter McMansions). The homeowner neighbor (a well liked guy and volunteer firefighter) shoots the teenager. His 16 year old neighbor dies in his hallway.

This is in a wealthy suburban neighborhood home values >$500k with no reported crime outside of rare petty theft on cars.

What's apparent in the online discussions is that a huge number of people think the homeowner was entirely correct to shoot to kill. That the risk that the homeowner was going to be killed by an intruder trumped any caution in case it was in fact a kid making a mistake, with terrible consequences. That any attempt by the homeowner to determine the identity of the person by turning on the light and warning them would be foolish as he would surrender a tactical advantage.

This is a huge issue for gun owners - if your fear of being killed in your home by an unknown assailant is greater than your concern that you might kill a family member or someone else by accident, then these types of tragedies will continue.

[Bang]

Apparently a bad situation was dodged in Florida yesterday.. a student had a rifle and handgun and a bag of bombs, and was seen by a dorm mate who called 911.. the would-be gunman killed himself.

~Bang

[MattFancy]

Based on a very recent incident here in suburban northern Virginia it's clear that attitudes, fear and perception of risk are a huge factor. The story emerging in the last few days here is that a widely liked teenager (who had been partying and was possibly drunk), dropped off by his friends in the early hours at the end of the street so they wouldn't wake the parents, entered the wrong house two doors down from where he lived (cookie-cutter McMansions). The homeowner neighbor (a well liked guy and volunteer firefighter) shoots the teenager. His 16 year old neighbor dies in his hallway.

This is in a wealthy suburban neighborhood home values >$500k with no reported crime outside of rare petty theft on cars.

What's apparent in the online discussions is that a huge number of people think the homeowner was entirely correct to shoot to kill. That the risk that the homeowner was going to be killed by an intruder trumped any caution in case it was in fact a kid making a mistake, with terrible consequences. That any attempt by the homeowner to determine the identity of the person by turning on the light and warning them would be foolish as he would surrender a tactical advantage.

This is a huge issue for gun owners - if your fear of being killed in your home by an unknown assailant is greater than your concern that you might kill a family member or someone else by accident, then these types of tragedies will continue.

Ah the old, shoot first, ask questions later.

[Jumbo]

I think you can solve more problems with guns than "thinking".

What the world needs now is guns, just guns, that's the only thing that there's just too little of.

I really think the more people shooting other people, the better things will get, eventually.

[Corcaigh]

Ah the old, shoot first, ask questions later.

Not so much ... it's based on a heightened perception of one risk, and the discounting of another.

Some of my neighbors who are bright and caring people simply don't understand attitudes in other parts of the world. They think arming yourself is an appropriate security measure in a very safe society. They don't accept the point of view that in a community where the risk of a violent intruder is incredibly small (no-one knows of it every happening); that fear of a stranger is not more important than the other risk they need to weigh up of having a weapon in the house presenting a threat to the family, whether from an angry family member losing control, an inquisitive child meeting a lack of adequate precaution by the gun owner, or someone under the influence, or someone taking their own life.

[Bang]

{quote= Jumbo]What the world needs now is guns, just guns, that's the only thing that there's just too little of.[/quote]

Imagine all the bullets
It's easy if you try
Fire quick and duck
Make sure that one is for the other guy

Imagine all the people
armed to the teeeeth
yoo hooo ooo.

Imagine all your neighbors
living in armed camps
squinting through the curtains
with trigger finger cramps

Imagine all the people
Shooting each other dead
yooo hooo ooo

Imagine all the blood
the sum of all your fears
Made reality by your own self.
(It OK, we'll blame it on the queers)

Imagine all your children...
growing up in this
yooo hooo ooo

You may say I'm a dreamer
Wel, I'm not the only one
the only way we'll ever be safe
is if everyone has a gun

Imagine all the loonies
cruising past your house
the NRA says they're out there
So are you a man or a mouse?

~Bang! BangBangBang!