Slashdot Mirror
New York Passes Landmark Gun Law
New submitter mallyn points out that the state of New York has become the first state to pass a new gun control law since the school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary last month.
"Called the New York Safe Act, the law includes a tougher assault weapons ban that broadens the definition of what constitutes an assault weapon, and limits the capacity of magazines to seven bullets, down from 10. The law also requires background checks of ammunition and gun buyers, even in private sales, imposes tougher penalties for illegal gun use, a one-state check on all firearms purchases, and programs to cut gun violence in high-crime neighborhoods. ... New York's law also aims to keep guns out of the hands of those will mental illness. The law gives judges the power to require those who pose a threat to themselves or others get outpatient care. The law also requires that when a mental health professional determines a gun owner is likely to do harm, the risk must be reported and the gun removed by law enforcement."
Meanwhile, the Obama Administration is expected to propose a new federal assault weapons ban later today.
No criminal will dare violate the law now.
It won't matter a bit...
Until the underlying problem gets solved this is just political theater. (And hidden political theater since this was passed so quickly behind, for all intents and purposes, closed doors with no public discussion by the NY legislature.)
And why is this on /. he asks?
Given the speed of beauracracy, I'm absolutely sure this is a well thought out piece of legislation, which balances freedom with security. Fortunately, mental health professionals are the appropriate people in our judicial system to deny personal liberties, and that stigmatizing gun owners will help bring together a society that is being split on ideological lines.
What you really need is an agenda that keeps to a minimum the number of people who wake up one morning and say - "Alright, this is it. Society has chewed me up, stepped on me, brought me to such rage that the only thing I can think of is blind rage. I want to die and take as many other people with me as I can". If someone gets to that point and is even mildly resourceful, he will find a way to get what he wants, guns or no guns.
Since this is slashdot - let's talk about the new tech systems:
So will mental health professionals be required to do a check against gun owner databases? Will a mental illness database need to be created so that potential gun buyers can be screened at purchase time? How about house-holding - if someone in the same residence is a registered gun owner, will they be forced to surrender their weapons?
So, let me start this out by saying that I'm a damn sight from being a Republican, much less a gun nut. And yes, there are gun nuts - we all know the type.
Having said that, I love how NY (and for that matter, everywhere else) doesn't give a hoot in hell whether or not any actual evidence backs them up when laws like this get passed, much less track the results of what they have passed. It's a platitude, but true: criminals and other assholes could give a toss less whether or not they are breaking gun laws when they shoot someone. Regular folks are the ones who care about the law and mostly try to follow it, out of fear if nothing else.
And yes, the second amendment doesn't mean a turkey in every pot and a Bofors anti-aircraft gun in every garage, but god damn - every time the government tries to take away something that anyone used to have I need to ask myself, "Do I trust the government?", the answer to which is almost always NO. I'd rather have a hillbilly with a M-16 and the stars and bars hanging in a window living next to me than have The Man start confiscating guns "for our own good", that's for sure.
The law does contain a lot of really beneficial improvements that may well improve things, but the "one-feature" test for so-called "assault weapons" will apply to a rather large number of common sporting and competition guns, requires that they be registered within the year, and once registered these now-banned guns cannot be sold or transferred to another New Yorker -- they can only be transferred to a licensed gun dealer or to an out of state buyer -- even if the registered owner dies.
Not even legally-transferrable machine guns, what few there are, are so strictly regulated.
De-grandfathering pre-ban magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds is asinine (are people supposed to turn them in?), as is banning any newly-produced magazines with a capacity greater than 7 rounds. (You can keep your current 10-round magazines but you can't load more than 7 rounds into them.)
They could have kept such absurd provisions out of the law and people probably would think that it's a reasonable, if somewhat restrictive, law that may do some good stuff...but those extra provisions go way too far.
Of the ~750 murders with firearms a year in NY, 5 were with rifles of any kind... So, banning "assault rifles" is nothing other than a feel good measure to make idiots feel like they accomplished something.
All of this is nothing more than a circle jerk. They don't care about preventing real violence. Like bureaucrats, they want to pretend they are solving the problem but are actually doing nothing.
This shows that everyone against the Walmart can easily have the store chain banned.
They sell everything needed for mass destruction, and guns aren't even needed!
Gasoline, Vaseline jelly, and Tupperware = napalm
Plastic jar, nails and screws, fertilizer, newspaper, and matches = shrapnel bomb
Bleach and ammonia = mustard gas
Any one of these (let alone all of them together) would bring as much destruction, pain, and misery as a gun.
With this, our government has shown it cares not about the actual cause of the destruction, only the device that caused it and the people/places that sell it.
Time to pressure them to ban the Walmart and arrest anyone who shops there!
Actually, it does make a lot of popular guns illegal, and they are only cosmetically different from guns that remain legal. I'm sure that will fix everything.
Considering how easy it would be to set off some of those cheap Blue-Rhino propane tanks and get a similar death-toll, I hop that NYC is going to have gas control next on the agenda.
But ... but there are regulations on gas, how you transport it, who can drive the truck that transports it, where you can park it, where you can store it, etc. What sort of ineffective troll are you?
Nobody's TERKIN YER GERNS
Yet. This little gem. The law also requires that when a mental health professional determines a gun owner is likely to do harm, the risk must be reported and the gun removed by law enforcement."
Is ripe for abuse, and I will enjoy seeing this bitch slapped down by the federal judiciary faster than you can say Zen Fascism. After all no bad law has ever been passed in the emotional furor after a tragedy.
I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
So when it is determined that a gun owner needs to be relieved of their firearm by law enforcement (because they are no longer defined as able to own it) is the state going to re-imburse the owner the value of the gun? Would the funds come from some fund from gun sales tax? Are they temporarily taking it with the intention of returning it when able? Where will they be safely stored?
-Xen
Actually, they are. Detachable mag and one "military style" feature is now an evil "assault weapon". Owners have a brief period in which to sell them out of state. Seven round mags are simply not available, so just about all that's left are revolvers and old fashioned rifles.
I suspect this is a troll, but in case it isn't. The reason people are outraged at this, is the 7round restriction, not the new penalties, or background checks. No one makes 7 round magazines today, even for low capacity handguns. Various sports will have to change their rules, manufacturers will have to re-tool, and small business owners will go under as they are stuck with shelves of items they cannot legally sell, all so he can say he "did something". Bravo on the background checks, new penalties are redundant if we would sentence sanely to begin with.
refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
There are some things that *ARE* being taken. M1 Garand has an internal magazine that holds 8. When you load it you load a clip of 8 and press it into the magazine. Because you have to load the gun with a full clip you are loading too many bullets into the gun when you load the gun (even if you then immediately remove one bullet from the gun, you are a criminal for having put 8 into it at once. Legally using this gun is very questionable in NYS right now. Does the gun count as a relic? It's greater than 50 years old on design, but there have been a large portion of these guns rebuilt in the last decade with new wood, etc. Does this affect the relic status?
Do you Gentoo!?
The system will always fail some people. The question is - how deadly do you want the failures to be? Yes, weapons can always be found, but the time taken to construct and deploy a weapon is directly proportional to it not being used - the longer a person needs to be deadly, the more chance they will either cool off or be stopped.
No serious!
They're really really deadly weapons... .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Glasgow_International_Airport_attack
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_London_car_bombs
Become president of the USA, start arbitrary illegal wars and keep a personal kill list.
I do not understand how any of these reduced clip laws, or assault rifle bans, get passed when it is supposed to be legal to operate and join a militia and to have the ability to fight your own government if they turn tyrannical enough.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
If someone gets to that point and is even mildly resourceful, he will find a way to get what he wants, guns or no guns.
Exactly. Given the history of people blowing shit up in the US, and knife attacks that have left high numbers of bodies on the floor (in China, Japan, and yes, Europe), I'm going to be an ass.
The next time some horrible tragedy happens, I'm going to laugh my ass off.
Because this is so terribly American. Let's hand-wring, hand-wave, and ignore the real issue we need to deal with - because damn it, that's too hard. :(
The Chinese knife school massacre that happened at the same time Sandy Hook and have many people pointing to it like this -- yes there were many injured kids, but all of those are alive and back with their parents now. That makes all the difference in the world. Can you kill someone with a knife? Obviously! Is it quicker and easier and more distanced psychologically (less barrier for more people) to kill many people with a gun? Very much so.
While it's very true that mental health is a much more important issue to tackle, it's also exponentially more difficult. It takes far more time and money, neither of which we have much to spare. In the meantime, while it may not be the most efficient, why not put some common-sense restrictions in place with regards to weapons? Banning assault weapons might not be 100% effective, but at the same time, shouldn't we at least try to make it a little harder for mentally unstable people to get their hands on weapons designed specifically to create large numbers of people as quickly as possible?
Sure, there will be ways around it. There are always ways around it, and there are always alternatives. But the mere existence of these doesn't mean we shouldn't try. After all, if you look back at all these gun massacres, you'll find that in almost every case, the firearms were obtained completely legitimately, not from the black market. There is a point, of course, at which we have to say "Okay, we've done all we can reasonably do." Banning cars or propane tanks or whatnot would be ridiculous. Yes, they *could* be used for mass harm, but they generally aren't. Assault weapons are. It's only logical to put at least some restrictions on these things, since they have a history (not to mention purposeful design) of harming large numbers of people.
Banning guns, it's a bandaid act to make the politicians feel achieved. It's a false way of feeling like they did a job. In the end It disrespects the constitution, and the 50+ million legal gun owners who haven't murdered anyone.
and no, the founders most likely never foresaw machine guns and rocket launchers. But they learned from thousands of years of history that standing armies, soldiers that are bored with no wars, will turn on the citizens. This can be noted in the small towns with bored police... This can be seen across the world as we know it now. when the citizens cannot defend themselves, the government get's arrogant and diminishes the freedoms of the people. this is what our founders saw, and fought against, and it is what they know will always be the case. So they built into our constitution a way for the people to control government. Even they saw, 20 years later, the government was already too big for their liking but flew out of their hands.
Nationalism? Nah, we're a police state that's a beacon to those Communist nations, bent on proving that we are God.
Considering murders from rifles (of any kind mind you) account for 5% of murders by firearms, apparently they don't cause this "mass mayhem." But, lets not allow facts to cloud your emotions.
Or with a bomb.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
To date, this remains the deadliest school killing. The guy had a gun, but chose explosives.
I'm not going to pitch in on this emotional debate, save to point out that if you outlaw guns, crazy people will still find ways to kill other people, and in mass numbers.
Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
Another comment from ignorant anti-gun cultists. Many semi-automatic guns have magazines that support more than 7 rounds. I have a Ruger rifle that FROM THE FACTORY comes with 10 round magazines. I have NEVER seen a 7 round magazine for it. It's a hunting rifle for me, it's great for taking squirrels and rabbits that move around a lot. If I lived in NY, this gun would become useless. Yet someone could still easily buy and use 4 or more holsters and walk into a school with revolvers and shoot 10, 20, or more people if they wanted to. The law accomplished nothing except make a bunch of legal gun owners potential criminals. I also own a few 30 round magazines so when I go target shooting I don't have to reload as often. I can load them at home where it's easier and more comfortable. People who claim large magazines serve no purpose except killing people are just ignorant and don't know what they are talking about. People who claim a semi-automatic rifle can fire 6 shots a second are also ignorant. Three, maybe four tops. But then I can clear all 6 rounds out of my revolver in under 3 seconds, and reload in 3 more. so what difference does it make???
Last time I checked, the taking of property without due process is illegal. I doubt this will stand in it's present form. It takes a judge's order today to get a restraining order, it will be found that the police will have to get one to remove a gun from someone mentally ill, they can't just do it because some therapist says so. The government can't order me to sell something today that was legal yesterday. That's why pre-embargo Cuban cigars are still legal, along with many other grandfathered items in various laws.
Requiring back ground checks for private sales simply won't work. First, the FBI isn't setup to take them from private citizens. Second, why would I bother getting permission to sell a non-registered gun to a friend. Criminals already get guns from other criminals, I doubt if they will change their ways. Instead, thousands of people that now go to gun shows to sell guns they don't want anymore will simply stop doing it, reducing the supply and driving up the costs. If they want to make a difference, require anyone that sells more than 20 guns a year get a license. If there is a problem with private sales, it's not Bob next door selling to his buddies, it's the guy who is buying and selling to make a profit.
I doubt if much of this will survive any Supreme Court challenges. Cuomo and the NY legislature have just proven they are a bunch of ignorant people willing to pass ineffective laws just to look like they did something (and Obama is about to fall into that category). NY is going to lose some air travel business as people with guns avoid even passing through their airspace. I already do because of many cases where people just passing through had to spend a night and got booked on gun charges simply because the laws in NY are moronic and do nothing to prevent gun violence already.
I live in Mesa Arizona in a state that allows concealed carry without a license, Mesa remains below the national average in all violent crimes for cities of more than 500,000 people. Maybe if Cuomo and Bloomberg would work on figuring out why people in his state want to kill each other and focus on criminals, they might actually accomplish something of value.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
Actually, rampage killers typically create meticulous plans over time, they don't cool off, they build pressure.
refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
This is "stuff that matters".
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
Sensible changes
[citation needed]
and increased penalties for violence
Studies have proven time and again that increased penalties don't significantly reduce violence. This is what is wrong with your side in this argument. You are not interested in facts. You are only interested in feeling good. You are not interested in freedom, because you are insufficiently responsible for it. So are many gun owners, but is that something that just happened or a situation deliberately fostered by our government, who wants us dumb so that we can be more readily controlled? How will giving up your right to meaningful self-defense (7 rounds? really? in a state known for gang violence?) increase your safety when the police have been shown to commit crimes at the same rate as the general population?
None of these laws are going to reduce crime. I will bet you a dollar that gun crime will in fact increase in NY after these changes.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Not just ripe for abuse, but now borderline people will have more of a reason to lie to their psychiatrists about their inner demons. I can see APA hating this.
You mean the UK, where the violent crime rate is 3.5 times that of the US?? Where there was recently a run on small baseball bats because police weren't able to protect businesses and people from rioters?? That country??
.. where Big Brother knows what's best, and is watching.
I fail to see any common sense in a country where 5 years ago, a group of doctors were trying to ban long, pointed kitchen knives because the criminals had turned to those for killing. As I recall, the reason was 'no one needs those'.
The UK
Or is it a country without very large population centers, mostly rural, where murder rates are statistically lower anyway, everywhere in the world. Except in their cities.
I live in Arizona, where people carrying guns are not an uncommon site. I myself have carried into gas stations, drug stores, and banks without incident. I had a police officer pull me over to tell me my brake lights were out, I had a gun visible and he didn't ask me to take it off.
People who are knowledgeable about guns and know how to use them aren't scared of them. Anymore than someone is scared of a hammer. It's mostly people ignorant about guns who are scared of guns. And only want them removed because of their phobia, not the reality that low gun ownership does not reduce violent crime. I seem to recall a madman in Sweden a few years ago that showed how ineffective gun laws are.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
just came here to make a few points. "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." from the deceleration of independence http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html and, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." 2nd amendment. the WHOLE point was a) to be able to defend from {Europe,India,Africa,unknown} and b) so that when the government gets to broken we can use guns, in the hands of regular citizens to push the reset button. Tell me this, with all the restrictions like above, how are you supposed to go against an M1 Abrams tank, or an F-22? you know the best funded military in the world 7 times over. "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." It has been declared this attribution is "unsubstantiated and almost certainly bogus, even though it has been repeated thousands of times in various Internet postings. There is no record of the commander in chief of Japan’s wartime fleet ever saying it. However the sentiment holds true, and without something like the new Red Dawn movie to "Magically" take out all the infrastructure. I can understand the need for some semblance of gun control i guess. would not want children cruising the streets with them. but why should they be that much different that they you get cigarets or alcohol?
And there are plenty of knife attacks that left double digit body counts that you're choosing to ignore. If you're going to make the comparison of gun attacks to knife attacks, how about we also include bomb attacks in the comparison? What was worse, the Sandy Hook attack or the Oklahoma City attack? It would seem to me that a gun rampage would be preferable to a bomb. Assume your wonderful gun ban works perfectly, and the next psycho can't get a gun. What's going to be his next weapon of choice, knife or bomb? My guess is they'll be choosing to build bombs. There's a big difference between China and America. It's much easier to get the information on how to make a bomb, as well as get the ingredients, in America. Now on the flip side, what if 20% of the population of America were required to have carry and conceal guns? How do you think this would have affected the Colorado and Connecticut rampages, and how would it affect future rampages?
I can tell you for a fact that it wouldn't involve guns...and I even own a so-called assault rifle, so accessibility is not an issue.
That's what has me troubled by a lot of these new laws. I have 2 M1 Garands, one that was my grand fathers and one I bought through the civilian marksmanship program. From what I can tell they are now both assault weapons in New York.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
You know..... people have always said that the only purpose to a database of gun owners is to know who owns guns so they can confiscate them. Think about the law. it requires registration of all gun owners (a database). If a mental health practitioner reports a dangerous individual, without the database there's no way for law enforcement to know the person owned a gun.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
What you really need is an agenda that keeps to a minimum the number of people who wake up one morning and say - "Alright, this is it. Society has chewed me up, stepped on me, brought me to such rage that the only thing I can think of is blind rage. I want to die and take as many other people with me as I can". If someone gets to that point and is even mildly resourceful, he will find a way to get what he wants, guns or no guns.
The difference between guns and knives is that guns make the slaughter really much more easy. You know like point and click easy. It's because guns were invented after knives as a way to kill with more ease. Don't present these tools to crazy people as an option to solve their demented problems, regardless of if they are resourceful or not.
It is simply not true that mildly resourceful people get what they want regardless. The harder it is to acquire or do something, the more likely it is that it will not be done at all. It works like that for all other aspects of human endeavors, not sure why you think this differs from it.
Thank you for your input, AC. I'll try to explain why you're wrong.
There are millions of AR-15s owned by responsible people who will never use them to "cause mass mayhem". I own one and I use it for target shooting - I shoot paper targets at a proper range. Why do I need it? Well I guess I could use something else, but the AR-15 is widely available, easily customizable - there are lots of add-ons on the market that let me customize it to fit me just the way I like, it's cheap to shoot, and it's accurate. When I'm done with it for the day, it comes home with me and goes in the gun safe. A friend of mine uses his M14 (which is, by the way, 100% legal after this law even though it has 10-round magazines and has a much higher muzzle energy) for the same purpose - but his cost to shoot is higher. Most of the people who I shoot with at the matches also have AR-15s for the same reasons.
Other people use their AR-15s for hunting or for self-defense in the home (I would argue that a shotgun loaded with bird shot is a much better option for home defense, but I digress). Because they look scary though, and because a few of them were used by troubled people to do evil things, now the vast majority of us - who will never use them irresponsibly - need to suffer.
I'm not going to risk making a flawed analogy, but I resent the fact that people who know nothing about the safe handling of firearms and who have obviously never been to a shooting range can tell those of us who do and have, our own business. I suspect (since we're on slashdot) that we can agree that rules by people who aren't "in the know" often have the tendency of being profoundly misguided.
- "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"
I with mod you up.
...And in the state of New York, you can still get yourself a nice Browning 1911-22 with walnut like the one I take plinking when I drive my blue Prius out to our little country place.
Your "Second Amendment Rights" to bear a gun or a Blue-Rhino gas can have not been infringed.
Don't know about your Second Amendment, but mine was written to protect me from a tyrannous government, i.e. it expects me to fight government (if such need should arise) and not go plinking or hunting with my weapons, i.e. it means I should have access to military grade weapons.
No, the question is, how overbearing do you want the State to become? How many laws is it going to take before we are 100% safe in our daily lives? What is that country going to look like?
Not only that, but building a bomb isn't a completely simple affair. If you do it wrong one way, you blow yourself up. Do it wrong another way and your rampage will consist of tossing a bunch of duds. Do it wrong yet another way and the FBI catches wind of your plot and arrests you before you do anyone any harm. Compared to that, grabbing an assault weapon with a 100 round magazine and shooting folks up is easy and hard to detect before the shooting occurs.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
That would explain the improvised bomb attacks that happen almost monthly in the UK, Canada, Australia, Germany...
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Actually, It makes most semi-automatic firearms illegal. Everything but revolvers and large caliber handguns. Those Ruger 10/22's that many kids grew up with are now assault rifles. My Browning Medalist target .22, is now an assault weapon and if I lived in NY, would be banned.
is still a job. if you want to lower crime in general, then take steps to improve the economy - which (in the past) has meant the government getting out of the way.
I'm not opposed to gun control - I just don't think it will make any difference (except make politicians feel like they "did" something about the problem)
with my libertarian leanings satisfied, I'll point out that the only nation-state I know of to successfully manage "gun control" was feudal Japan (Samurai who had spent a lifetime perfecting their skills wanted protection from poorly trained peasants with guns).
If you believe that a primary function of government is to protect citizens from each other - then maybe we should be discussing repeal of the second amendment. Simply make it illegal for everyone (except the "government") to own guns - then be prepared to incarcerate everyone you find with a gun.
if THAT works, we could make all drugs illegal to cut down on drug addiction ... (after all making something illegal NEVER has unintended consequences)
on the other hand the pointless reference of the day: this debate always reminds me of the "Treehouse of Horror" episode where Lisa wishes for world peace - "He's got a board with a nail in it!" and "They constructed a board with a nail in it, but they won't stop there. They'll construct bigger boards with bigger nails, and then they'll construct a board with a nail in it so large, it will destroy them all..."
It ain't what they call you. It's what you answer to. http://mylyceum.us/
I'm sure startled, panicked, untrained people spraying bullets left right and centre in a darkened cinema would have reduced the death toll to around a hundred.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
What percent of the time were the guns owned by the person using them in the shootings? I don't know the answer. Using my unscientific method of "memory", I believe most of the guns were acquired from relatives. Either they stole them from parents/uncle, or were given them by parents. I don't understand how having a 7 round magazine will change that. Will having a 7 round magazine help anything? Maybe. But if you had passed a law requiring gun owners to use approved gun storage containers, and you made people accessories to crimes if their guns were stolen and not properly stored, I think it would do more to solve the school shootings issue than any real legislation that has been brought up. I also know that you would have a lot more support from the gun owners of America.
They must be going after rifles because they know they'll have an easier time banning them than they will with handguns. It has nothing to do with whether or not it will help anyone or not.
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
No, what we need is an agenda that keeps to minimum someone who is hearing voices saying that Miss Jowinski's kindergarten class are really demons from Hell that are trying to kill him from grabbing the specially-designed murder device that Mom keeps under her bed and using it to rain, onto a bunch of kids who were busy coloring just a few seconds before, a hundred 6.8 Rem SPC rounds (armor-piercing) with a muzzle velocity of 800 meters per second and energy of 2390 joules, that Mom bought from Lucky Gunner Online, tearing their tiny bodies to shreds.
Except we can't even talk about that agenda without a certain segment of the population, at the behest of the industry that profits from said massacre, from pulling out their "don't tread on me with your cold dead hands" bumper stickers and marching about screaming that President Blackness is now Hitler times ten. With that, plus all the noise of gun manufacturers' cash registers ringing every time there's another massacre-of-the-month, it's kind of hard to have that talk, you know?
You are welcome on my lawn.
Hitler shot himself. Using the phrase "just like Hitler" implies that he thinks Obama should commit suicide. While it may be argued that's in poor taste, it's not a threat.
You're kidding right? You think the NRA would let the government invade people's homes? There's be a barrage of constitutional challenges to any such law, however well-intentioned.
The reason this hasn't been proposed is because there's not a snowball's chance in hell of it being adopted.
This perhaps explains why very few armies these days charge into battle waving swords.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
To quote Rowan Atkinson in The Thin Blue Line:
"It is my duty to ensure that only those people who _should_ be in possession of a handgun _are_ in possession of a handgun, in doing this I must judge their character.
With this duty in mind I have but two questions for anyone who comes asking such a licence; Would you like to own a gun? and, if I were to issue this licence, will you then take that licence and use it to procure said weapon?
If the applicant answers to both in the affirmative, then I deem that they are not really the sort of person who I feel should be in possession of a gun."
It's as unpopular a view to state in front of Americans and it is a popular one to state in front of non-gun-owning countries. The usual comeback is what would happen if someone breaks into my house with a weapon, don't I wish I had a gun then? Yes, but I wish harder that the other guy never was able to get hold of a gun in the first place, and that's made much easier by gun control for private hands.
In my entire life, I have never discharged a weapon. I have never held a weapon. I have never seen a real, live weapon except in an airport where the police are routinely armed. I have never seen a live weapon discharged in my entire life. I have lived and worked in some of the most horrible, manky, poor, deprived, crime-ridden areas of my country. I have had people try to walk into my house past me, and have had physical threats against my person.
And not once did I ever think "What this situation really needs is another gun".
I can't emphasise it enough, if you point a gun in my direction, accidentally or not, I will do anything up to and including killing you to stop that situation occurring or continuing. But owning a gun expressly for that purpose will only cause the same reaction from the other party.
> improvised bomb attacks
And OK, I'll break my own rule and say this, too. The thing is, something like the Sandy Hook tragedy is just that: a tragedy. Anyone with any human emotion at all is going to be heartsick. I certainly was.
But because of the way the media covers events like these, they get all of the attention. (Disclaimer: I WORK in the media. Radio.) But what doesn't get attention are the countless children who are slowly tortured, or sexually abused, or simply abducted and THEN tortured and abused.
We're fascinated with numbers. Sandy Hook was a horrible, horrible tragedy. I'm not taking away from it for a moment. But there was a little girl who was brutally raped and murdered (when they found her body, her PELVIS had been crushed by the force of the rape) back in NC, where I used to live. Most of you have never heard of her. She never even made the news, save for a brief mention in the local papers.
The truth is that we have a sick society, but we're spraying water on the flames instead of at the root of the problem.
Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
Five weeks ago, Nancy Lanza probably considered herself a responsible AR-15 owner. After all, she owned the weapons to defend her and her family.
The problem is the difficulty in establishing who is an irresponsible owner until after the fact.
Oh no. You might have to use a less powerful toy. Your poor liberty and freedom!
Did you even read my post? If anything, I'll switch to use a MORE powerful toy because of this law.
- "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"
In 2011 there were 323 murders committed with all types of rifles. In that same year, there were 6,220 committed with handguns. Yet there is an insane push to outlaw the firearm which is statistically insignificant in the grand scheme of crime.
"WE ARE AFRAID OF OUR FELLOW CITIZENS! That is what this new law is effectively stating."
Funny, I thought the need to own guns for 'protection' and 'just in case', and ESPECIALLY Concealed Carry was explicitly stating.
You do realize that home invasions aren't always a single person. Groups of 2 or 3 are quite common. 7 rounds to deal with 3 intruders is getting pretty darned dicey.
Even trained law-enforcement when shooting typically have between a 17% and a 40% hit rate (that's not a hit to a vital area - just a hit at all), varying somewhat between what department you're looking at and what they're shooting at. Which means that even if you take the upper number of 40% a trained LEO is only likely to get 2.8 hits out of 7 shots.
Of course, the law-makers realize the foolishness of that and give the cops more bullets because they need them, but apparently the average citizen defending their home isn't worth as much.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Ok, um, so I'm in the know here (see user name/uid). Also, I'm a Texan, so that possibly qualifies me by birth...
The weapons you are describing are military derivative firearms and by all rights, SHOULD be banned IMO. We, as a nation, have proven ourselves incapable of properly storing our firearms, incompetent at assessing who should have a firearm, and generally promoting the glorification of firearms use via the media, games, and certain aspects of our culture.
At the same time, we have tried to claim that the right to own firearms does not come with any responsibility. If your kid leaves his toys out, after several warnings, you, as a parent, would be taking a reasonable stance to put the toys away for him. The child (in this badly crafted analogy) has not demonstrated the responsibility that comes along with the right to those toys. Same for those of us in the gun culture. We have failed at our responsibility to safely possess firearms. We do not deserve them now.
You said something that I'd like to point out to be overdramatic in the least, and possibly flat-out manipulative; "now the vast majority of us - who will never use them irresponsibly - need to suffer". Can you please tell me how much you will suffer? If we combine the total suffering from all the people in the state who will lose their guns, do you believe that it is greater than the suffering felt by any combination of the parents of the Sandy Hook victims? If you want to bring suffering into this discussion, let's keep that perspective in mind.
America is all about speed. Hot, nasty, badass speed. -Eleanor Roosevelt, 1936
I would argue that a shotgun loaded with bird shot is a much better option for home defense, but I digress
Shotgun, yes, bird shot, no. Bird shot tends to produce nasty-looking but very shallow wounds which will generally not stop a determined assailant. For an effective man-stopper, you need deeper penetration. Yes, that means that your deeper-penetrating projectiles will also penetrate walls better, but anything that will penetrate a human body sufficiently to have a prayer of stopping an attack will also go through some walls.
There are numerous web sites and YouTube videos that demonstrate the inadequacy of bird shot for home defense. Bird shot is for birds, if you need to shoot people use buck shot.
As for an AR for home defense, it's certainly perfectly functional, and actually doesn't create as much overpenetration risk as is often assumed, due to the tendency of the bullets to tumble and fragment. But a shotgun loaded with buckshot is a more effective man-stopper at close range and will overpenetrate less.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Gun manufacturers wouldn't see massive purchase spikes if anti-liberty folk didn't use the corpses of children as an excuse to do harm to people that had nothing to do with creating those corpses. This new law in New York just proves the panic buyers right.
If there were no anti-liberty politicians seeking to use tragedy for a people control agenda, then there would be no panic buys.
This will increase the number of calls into the check system by orders of magnitude. Today the usual NICS background check turnaround times vary by time of day and what else is going on (gun show weekend == one to four hour turnaround). And there's no mandate that the state return results in a timely manner, so access can be artificially manipulated by downstaffing the background check office or otherwise ensuring that the checks take an excessive amount of time. And there are stores which sell ammo but not firearms, so these will need to have access to the system.
Adding an extra hassle to each ammunition purchase pretty much guarantees that people are going to buy the maximum amount of ammunition allowable with each purchase, and also pool together purchases for groups of friends. Or just drive across state lines and buy their ammo in a "free state".
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
You have to understand terminal ballistics to understand why they changed from MP5s to rifles(M16/M4/whatever). The 9mm round actually has a higher chance of over-penetrating a target than a .223 even though it has far less power. The .223 tends to fragment and tumble while the 9mm stays solid and passes through in roughly a straight line; possibly hitting someone behind them. This is research which has been done on statistics over the last 20 years from dozens of countries' police forces which is why you see the change moving away from sub-machineguns all over and not just in a single country.
Orwell was an optimist.
Quick question about the Second Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Has the U.S. ever assembled a militia? How would a militia be different from a national draft? Would gun ownership in the U.S. trump any ethical or religious objection to joining a militia?
From Wikipedia:
a military force composed of ordinary citizens to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service.
It seems that a militia is more of an emergency task force. Perhaps something like this would fall under FEMA rather than the military?
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
The remaining weapons become much more lethal after a ban is passed, as the criminals don't turn their in, and now they know it is open season.
Not to mention that even after all the guns are gone, the general level of violent crime remains higher in perpetuity, as has been shown in the UK, where hooligans roam the streets with near impunity.
> Doesn't matter to all the junior McVeighs here on Slashdot
It's a matter of imagination, not subversion. Nanny state dependents with no imagination can't understand that there are other ways to engage in mayhem. We live in a highly advanced technological society with potentially dangerous materials all around us. We also live in a free society where knowledge about how to use and abuse such materials is freely available.
An industrial arts class from the 80s could probably get around this latest attempt at legislating away technology.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Required carry and concealed carry imply training.
Most states mandate training in the use of, retention of and storage of weapons before you get the magical license.
Background checks, finger printing are also done.
Startled-I would be startled to have shots fired but with my training I know what would come next.
Panicked- not me and I would think not most of those with concealed carry permits would be.
untrained- well see there ya'l just gone and went stupid on us. To carry means trained not untrained.
Spraying bullets- I think you have been watching too much TV and western movies. Your NOT taught to spray and pray your taught site picture and center body mass shots.
As for body armor- I was always taught and practice doubles. 2 to the chest...doesnt drop them then 2 to the head.
But then I shoot IPSC and PPC and have for 36 years so I may skew your numbers.
Your statement would lead one to believe that it was the wild west out here, when it isnt.
Alaska doesnt have any of the mandated training, it says that any LAW abiding person my carry...period.
When was the last mass murder in Alaska??
Oh yeah Bethel, Ak.(1981) 2 dead and Evan [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evan_Ramsey] in prison until he dies.
"Remember, politicians and diapers should be changed often and for the same reason."
Because no matter what happens guns are the problem, not individuals, right?
Yep I'm a coward.
You thought you were going to shame me or something?
I know better. "A man's gotta know his limitations". That means that when lions and bears and bobcats and coyotes come around, I prefer some firepower that's not from the French and Indian wars.
If you feel that you can't trust your friends and neighbors with modern "military" weapons then you're the one with a messed up society.
Banning the ammo box is just a manifestation of the desire to ban the ballot box.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Getting killed in a spree killing is sort of like getting killed in a lightning strike. It's so rare it's not really worth considering. However, the likelihood of getting mugged is quite high, and will increase greatly now that the muggers know that their victims won't be armed. They can even assault you with inferior weapons with little danger to themselves, as they can simply target the weak. Previously, a little old lady could kill several thugs with a handgun. Now, she can't.
People need to understand that life does not have infinite value. If it did, no-one would go to war to throw off the chains of their oppressors. The US wouldn't exist, and slavery would still be practiced everywhere.
No, we're not spraying water. The media is spraying gasoline, they know it, and love it, and WILLINGLY do it.
Don't give people their 15 minutes to 2 weeks+ of fame, and (at least from knowledge learned in other situations) a large motivation for doing 'ghastly' things stops. They do it because it gets peoples attention and focuses it on them, even if for a terrible reason.
I really hope they do; there's very good reason why mental health professionals have so many protections and obligations regarding patient privacy. If there is one place in the world where the government really shouldn't get involved, it's the therapist's office. Besides, most psychiatrists are already either required or encouraged to report to the appropriate officials when they believe a life is in danger, either the patient's or others. The only thing this law accomplishes is to repeat that in the specific context of guns, and draw attention to it in what is sure to be a long and detailed coverage by the media.
weinersmith
I really wish people would look up the word "Infringe" before making statements like this:
/infrinj/
Verb
1. Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright".
2. Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".
"Your "Second Amendment Rights" to bear a gun or a Blue-Rhino gas can have not been infringed.".
infringe
The usage in the constitution is the same as definition #2. To have our privacy "infringed" on does not necessarily mean that all privacy was taken away, it just means that some of it was taken away. So, likewise, any law that summarily prohibits all citizens from keeping and carrying (bearing) arms (weapons) of a certain "commonly used" type is a violation of the 2nd Amendment as that is "Infringement" by definition (the supreme court has previously allowed restrictions on "firearms not commonly used for self defense or militia purposes". Clearly, some of the firearms covered in this ban are very commonly used for self defense AND militia purposes, so I don't see how this law could be considered constitutional by any stretch of the imagination...especially the portion banning the possession of magazines over 7 rounds.
Adam broke into the safe while she was traveling. Then shot her with a .22 rifle when she returned, and finished his plans (a couple of days with her dead on the bed).
Safes keep children and lawyers from guns. There isn't a safe that will withstand a smart and determined attacker with time to get it open.
While it's very true that mental health is a much more important issue to tackle, it's also exponentially more difficult. It takes far more time and money, neither of which we have much to spare. In the meantime, while it may not be the most efficient, why not put some common-sense restrictions in place with regards to weapons? Banning assault weapons might not be 100% effective, but at the same time, shouldn't we at least try to make it a little harder for mentally unstable people to get their hands on weapons designed specifically to create large numbers of people as quickly as possible?
Sure, there will be ways around it. There are always ways around it, and there are always alternatives. But the mere existence of these doesn't mean we shouldn't try. After all, if you look back at all these gun massacres, you'll find that in almost every case, the firearms were obtained completely legitimately, not from the black market. There is a point, of course, at which we have to say "Okay, we've done all we can reasonably do." Banning cars or propane tanks or whatnot would be ridiculous. Yes, they *could* be used for mass harm, but they generally aren't. Assault weapons are. It's only logical to put at least some restrictions on these things, since they have a history (not to mention purposeful design) of harming large numbers of people.
A little harder? Might not be %100 effective? Shouldn't try? Assault weapons?
I guess all the things you're talking about are just "common sense", eh? Let me explain to you why you are %100 wrong and people like you are dangerous to a Republic.
First, we have a petty tyrant here where I live in New York City who calls himself the Mayor. He says he believes in the Second Amendment but that we need "common sense restrictions". This is the same mayor who has instituted a policy of illegally searching black people for no reason whatsoever. You know, the Stop and Frisk program. Google it. They are stopping and searching black people on the streets, in every borough and in front of and inside all the public projects. Out of the hundreds of thousands of Stop and Frisks less than %10 percent of the citizens they have searched have had a weapon, gun or drugs. But hey, it's not %100 effective but we should try a little harder, right?
In NYC, you have to pay $340 every three years just for the privilege of having a handgun in your own home. In New York State it's $10. Most other states don't charge a dime for you to keep a gun at home. You think a lower middle class family can afford that? At one point, I could not afford that on a paramedic salary. You know what the response was from the NYPD? $340 or turn your guns in; if not we'll arrest you. See, they took an enshrined right and regulated it out of existence; turned it into a privilege.
And on Evil Black Rifles, aka "Assualt Weapons", there is NO SUCH FUCKING THING! You don't like them because they are evil looking and BLACK. See the above first paragraph and think about that for a while. Black "Assault Weapons" are hated because of how they look, i.e., *black*, military style with a conspicuous *protruding* pistol grip. Does that remind you of how some white southerners felt about muscular black slaves? The racists who thought that these "Assault Slaves" were ready to rape their wives and pre-teen daughters and thus had to be "controlled" and "restricted" from just about doing anything but work the fields?
Look at the Ruger Mini 14 here: http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14/index.html Look at the differences between the wholesome looking Ranch version and the Evil Black Tactical. One would be legal in New York State and the other would not even though they fire the same ammunition and have the EXACT same receiver, action and trigger group. One is Mighty Whitey with its walnut stock and hunting aesthetics. The other, well... That *black* pistol grip sure looks phallic and *black*! That's nothing but a killing
The weapons you are describing are military derivative firearms and by all rights, SHOULD be banned IMO.
Why? Many guns, including traditional-looking hunting guns, are derivatives of military design. Why does that matter in any way?
I understand saying "Full-auto machine guns are functionally different than semi-auto guns and thus pose a significant danger and should be restricted." -- in general, I agree with that statement. What I don't understand is why saying "Some semi-auto guns are somehow more dangerous than semi-auto guns and should be restricted" even though they are functionally identical and differ only in appearance.
Since AR-15s are used extremely rarely in crime (rifles if any sort, including AR-15s, are only used in about 3.7% of gun-related homicides according to FBI crime stats, and both the rate and absolute numbers have been doing down year-over-year for a long time), why should they be singled out?
Even with all the widely-publicized news stories about gun crime, America today has lower rates of gun-related homicide since 1964 and the downward trend is continuing.
Can things be done to help reduce violent crime even more? Absolutely. Will banning the most popular rifle in the country (which is rarely used in crime) have any meaningful effect on reducing violent crime? No.
Liberal idiots whip themselves into a frenzy because rifles look scary. They associate rifles with the military and wars. Rifles are an easy target for mass hysteria for the same reason that ignorant reporters fixate on them.
Meanwhile, pistols are clearly more popular and at the same time seen as a self-defense weapon. They seem less scary, more useful, and harder to demonize.
They are more useful for self defense because they are more portable and also easier to use for nefarious purposes for that same very reason.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
We have a messed up society. For reference just compare our murder rates to any other first world nation.
My friends and neighbors should not be trusted with nukes, either. Does not mean anything is wrong with our society.
No one wants to ban the ballot box, this type of language only serves to convince people you are a fringe nutter.
Next they'll be calling those hunting rifles "Sniper Rifles." Disarmament advocates are never satisfied.
Why would the risk level of the murder weapon matter to these people? In case you haven't noticed, most of them KILL THEMSELVES. They are your typical suicide bomber anyways. The fact that materials are dangerous isn't necessarily going to stop them.
The guy in Colorado was suited up for a gas attack. He could have chose homemade nerve gas as is weapon of choice and have been perfectly safe.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
The Germans probably thought the same thing. But national "emergency" trumps the special interests of evil gun-owners.
Step one is always to disarm the populace. With an armed populace, the government can only become so oppressive.
The shooter never used body armor. The media just doesn't know anything about guns and thought his load bearing vest was body armor. Besides the point, body armor isn't magical, you still feel the hits. It also only covers your chest, there are plenty of other places someone fighting back could hit you and debilitate you.
There's also a pattern to these shootings. Typically as soon as armed resistance shows up, be that the police or a citizen with a carry permit, the shooters either give up or commit suicide.
Finally, I'd rather take my chances with "untrained civilians" than with NYPD.
Reality disagrees. Compare the murder rate of the UK with the USA.
Your second amendment definition is not only unhinged, it's incorrect. It's unlawful to take arms against the government, and that's specifically written in the constitution (treason clause). The second amendment clearly states that the purpose of bearing arms is to participate in a local or state (possibly even federal) militia--i.e. FOR the government, not against it. These principles were tested early on during the Whiskey rebellion, and then more definitively during the Civil War. It's not legal to violently "rise up" against the government. It is not a "right" in the constitution. Sorry.
We have a much more effective system to overthrow the government. It's called voting. People like you are vivid examples why we need more gun control. There is no "right" to plan an armed insurrection, no matter what you believe. People who plan on or encourage violence against their fellow citizens are dangerous.
You have obviously never been shot with body armor on. It's not paintball.
No. People in that state of mind aren't thinking straight. Depressed, suicidal people aren't as ingenious as you think they are. If Adam Lanza hadn't had easy access to lots of guns, it is not likely that he would instead create some cunning plan to import assault rifles from Russia or something. Instead he would have executed his killing spree with other accessible weapons such as a knife, like a Chinese lunatic recently did. He managed to stab 23 children and one elderly woman, none of which died. Clearly a considerably better outcome than Adam Lanza's mass murder.
Football Odds
1. Go to Youtube,
2. Search for "LA Riots Korean"
3. Observe the 2nd Amendment in action.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
All semblance of being a free society?
So to you the only thing that matters for a free society is owning firearms?
Do you believe no other first world nations are free societies?
This sort of nutcase talk does not further your arguments, it only makes you look like a nutcase.
Doing so would show that the US has almost double the knife homicide rate of the UKs ENTIRE homicide rate. Or used to anyway, I haven't really compared numbers for the last 5 years or so. Moreover, if you ignore murder rates, the UK is much more dangerous than the US.
Why was this labeled troll and not insightful? All these "gun laws" ignore a simple and obvious fact, which is this: Criminals? they don't follow your laws, hence WHY THEY ARE CALLED CRIMINALS!!!
Here are three little facts that blows these stupid gun laws right to shit, 1.- Biggest body count by less than 5 persons? OKC, weapon? Diesel and fertilizer, recipe can be found anywhere on the net. 2.-Toughest gun laws are mexican, can't own a gun legally there, are the criminals throwing rocks at each other? nope they are building technicals and have better guns than the Mexican military. Finally 3.- The surpreme court ruled in Gonzales V Castle Rock that the police have NO obligation to protect you, NONE. Hell they don't even have to show up at all if they don't feel like it. in that case the woman did EXACTLY what the gun law advocates say to do, she called the cops. when they showed up FOUR HOURS LATER the kids were dead, call the meat wagon. the court said that is just fine because the police are NOT THERE to serve and protect YOU, they are to serve and protect THE STATE. Their answer to what happens to you? DEFEND YOURSELF. How are you gonna do that without a gun? Throw a lamp at the intruder?
So I'm sorry but your own court system has said the ONLY one there to defend you IS YOU, the biggest body count by what we would call the "lone nut" didn't even use a gun, and the place with the toughest gun laws have the criminals ruling the place. yeah...I think the gun banners arguments are pretty fucking blown to shit. one final note, you have been using everything from milsats to gunships trying to stop drugs across the border and its been a MASSIVE FAIL, you honestly think guns would be ANY harder to smuggle than dope? An AK47 in the former USSR goes for less than $100 USD, a criminal will pay 10 times that...tada! You have dealers risking their lives for less profit margins than that, think they just won't go into the gun biz?
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
The Germans probably thought the same thing. But national "emergency" trumps the special interests of evil gun-owners.
Step one is always to disarm the populace. With an armed populace, the government can only become so oppressive.
You do know that the 1938 German Weapons Act actualy removed restrictions on firearms ownership, don't you?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Or with a bomb.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
To date, this remains the deadliest school killing. The guy had a gun, but chose explosives.
I'm not going to pitch in on this emotional debate, save to point out that if you outlaw guns, crazy people will still find ways to kill other people, and in mass numbers.
That may be exception to the rule, instead of statistically significant. Gun-control laws in Australia show different results:
Though gun-related deaths did not suddenly end in Australia, gun-related homicides dropped 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides.
From: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2012/1224/Could-the-US-learn-from-Australia-s-gun-control-laws
There's more than a decade of experience with "they will use something else for mayhem" not proving to be true. I agree most of the NY law is just plain dumb, but if any positive change is going to be made we have to throw out the dumb notions and misconceptions on both sides.
How about instead of having a database of lawful gun owners, we have a Free, Open and Searchable database of all people with mentally unstable, or have violent tendancies. It makes much more sense.
That was semi sarcastic, in that nobody is suggesting that anyone that has had a mental breakdown or violent episode be put in a national database. However I want to know why. All you liberal pantywaists can list your reason why THIS is not a good idea, but feel okay to register people who have no issues while not being hypocritical.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
And you're the reason why a calm, serious discussion is unable to take place in this country. I would say I'm coming from a relatively reasonable position of allowing firearms, but putting in place common sense restrictions. You immediately dismiss everything, and then proceed to make up an stance to argue against that is completely fictional. I'm really speechless as to where you even get some of your arguments, or how they at all factor in as a response to what I've said.
Total murder rates however dropped by the same amount. Which was around 30% iirc. Unless you believe that being murdered with a gun is somehow more abhorrent than by being murdered in any other way, gun soecific statistics alone are irrelevant.
The purpose of the Second Amendment is not to grant every yokel the right to whatever firearm they please. The purpose is not to take up arms against your own government, but rather to take up arms for your government, as part of a militia, in order to defend your country from others. Within that scope, I am fully supportive of the right of individuals to bear arms. However, I do not support the right of anyone and everyone to go buy an assault rifle with no regulation whatsoever, as many gun enthusiasts are crying out for.
"Well regulated" refers to a militia working well. That's what that phrase means. It doesn't mean government regulation. I guess the founding fathers believed in the right to bear arms for Britain too, right? And furthermore, the SCOTUS disagrees with you. The second amendment does grant the people an individual right to bear arms. The second amendment is not about self protection, nor hunting, nor sporting, it's about retaining the ability to defend yourself and your rights from enemies both foreign, and domestic.
I don't have a television, and those stores defended by gun owners were spared from the rioters, while those that weren't were burned.
Well, we have already lost all of our other rights. The right to own firearms is all we have left. Losing that is losing all that is left.
And no, most Western societies are no longer free. Lots of "nutcases" in Germany said the same thing about their society as their rights were rapidly eroded. The worst actions only happened after the loss of the right to bear arms.
I'm sorry but, based on the above, the original author of the piece really should see a mental health professional about his narcissism, paranoia, and anxiety. They are a pretty toxic mix and could be potentially dangerous to those around him, especially if he's armed.
That is all.
> Don't give people their 15 minutes
If everyone in the media would just agree that they'd never, ever mention the name or show an image of the perpetrator, that would go a long way toward solving the problem. I fully agree.
Absolutely. Most of these mutts have a death wish and want to go out as spectacularly as possible. They WANT the attention and notoriety. I say take it from them.
Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
So it really doesn't matter as we are all part of the unorganized militia.
The more irrational the arguments made by gun nuts, the easier it is to legislate against guns.
So please, keep it up.
You don't like them because they are evil looking and BLACK.
So, if that's the only reason, wouldn't the manufacturers be better served by painting them a nice pink and giving them a different form factor? Then there wouldn't be any objection at all.
Somehow I believe that the reason they look evil and (as you put it) BLACK is so that they will look intimidating. Now why you want or need something that looks intimidating is between you and your warped psyche, but at least a pink one would not have the issue that you seem to think is the crux of the matter. And given that no one is fixing that (while not reducing the lethality of the weapon) would seem to indicate that the color and form factor are not the issues you make them out to be. I, for one, think that the issue might just be the greater lethality of these weapons and their improved ability to kill large numbers of people in a short period of time, especially when outfitted with outsized clips. But no, it must be because they're BLACK and scary.
That is all.
It's a matter of imagination, not subversion. Nanny state dependents with no imagination can't understand that there are other ways to engage in mayhem.
Yeah, but penis extension worshipers just don't get the kick from propane.
How this stupidity is moderated as informative I can't imagine. I suppose all the female gun owners have penis envy too? The weak people who defend themselves with guns just wish they had bigger dicks?
Grow up.
I should grow up?
You do know that Bushmaster were advertising the AR15 with the slogan "consider your man card reissued"?
I'm just assuming they know their market.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Well, you said any other. How about Bahama. Before you deny it being a "first world" nation -- the PPP GDP per capita for 2011 was $30,958. The murder rate was 27.4 per 100,000 people vs 4.8 in the US. About 80% of all Bahamian murders involve guns.
Guns are tightly controlled, Getting a personal carry permit is very difficult.
Generally, only members of the Royal Bahamas Police Force and the Royal Bahamas Defense Force are allowed to carry revolvers and other types of firearms (i.e. automatic rifles, assault rifles, canons, etc.) and ammunition associated with this form of weaponry. However the Licensing Authority holds the authority to permit the use of revolvers to Bahamian residents through the provision of a Special License (for revolvers) or a Firearm Certificate (for high powered weaponry). The Licensing Authority may also vest its powers to the Commissioner of Police to grant, reject, or revoke the provision of Special Licenses or Firearm Certificates. If you plan to submit an application for a Special License or Firearm Certificate, expect to present the same documentation as required for a Gun License application.
So tell me, how can this be?
Maybe we should try Switzerland, murder rate 0.7 per 100,00, Yet gun owership rate is 45.7 per 100 people vs 88 per 100 in the US. Gun ownership over 50% of the US, yet murder rate only about 14% of the US.
Maybe, there are other factors than just gun ownership rates.
I suspect that there was significantly less looting of the Korean owned stores than there was of the London stores.
I suspect more of them died, thinking that they could protect their stores with guns. I suspect more of them killed innocent people, thinking they were protecting their stores with guns.
"Edward Song Lee
TIME: 9:50 p.m. LOCATION: Near corner of Third Street and Hobart Boulevard, Wilshire District
Lee, 18, a Korean-American living with his mom in the Wilshire District, was out with three friends when they got into a fight with another group of Koreans. Police responded to the gunfight and exchanged fire with both groups. Lee suffered two fatal hits to the chest as he sat in the front seat of a car. Someone in the rival group shot him. Detectives later learned the gun battle was a tragic mistake. Each group had been protecting Korean-owned stores and mistook the other for looters. Police made an arrest; no charges filed."
http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~oliver/soc220/Lectures220/AfricanAmericans/LA%20Riot%201992%20Deaths.htm
Then why do soldiers and elected officials pledge to defend the Constitution from enemies, "foreign and domestic"? Our own government is probably the biggest threat to our Constitution.
Ever hear of the POA? It's a way to play stats. Breach of the peace and Affray are now gone. You have Public Order Act, section 4 (or 4a or 5) instead. Guess what counts as violent crimes now? Guess who pumped those stats up to secure more funding. Amazing isn't it.
Allow me to illustrate for you who your REAL enemy is in terms of gun control. It's not the politicians. Contrary to popular /. opinion, our politicians are not stupid. It has, I guarantee you, occurred to at least some of our elected representatives that a ban on assault rifles is stupid and doesn't solve the problem. It has also occurred to many of them that the problem really is mentally ill people. However, there are two constituencies that are driving them to gun control measures. The first constituency happens to be socially & fiscally conservative pro-gun owners who insist on better policing of existing firearm regulations (good), and also reduce taxation for everyone in general, thus cutting down government waste and programs. This is admirable, except that mental health programs, asylums, and facilities in general that would benefit society by taking the mentally ill out of mainstream society and rehabilitating them are among the first local/county/state/federal funding expenditures to get cut because there's not enough of a constituency to represent them.
The second constituency, and the one with FAR more electoral power than the NRA, are suburban women voters. If you want to know WHO exactly is driving the push for gun control and pushing Rahm Emmanuel and all the other politicians in the country to do something about guns, it is this group. These are the voters who are working mothers, who have never grown up in a house with guns. Their children go to suburban schools very similar to Columbine and Sandy Hook. They've never been victims of violent crime. They've never had cause to fear a tyrannical government. But they DO know gun nuts. They all know at least one person who talks about government conspiracies, who brings up Obama at holiday dinners and how he's taking the county to damnation and socialism, who whispers darkly of the coming apocalypse over beers with their husbands on the back porch, and who owns a goddamn arsenal of scary-looking assault weapons. To these women, and their families, the Enemy is not urban black thugs. Nor is it black-clad government agents. The Enemy is the crazy gun nut down the street who doesn't seem to have his head screwed on straight, is paranoid and suspicious of everyone, has a whole lot of guns, and is constantly ranting about the government.
If you want to know the real reason why your gun rights are being taken away, go look in the mirror. You, and others like you, scare the hell out of these people who have no reason to fear the entities you fear. They fear YOU, and they are asking our government to do something about YOU. And they outnumber the NRA, they outnumber the responsible gun owners, and their voices will be heard. It is not a question of if gun control and an assault weapon ban is going to be enacted, but when. And bear this in mind: the day that women take to the streets and march in favor of gun control, is the day the Second Amendment will fall. Why? Because your Enemy won't be the black-clad federal troops coming to take away your guns, it's going to be the scared mothers, grandmothers, daughters, and sisters who are marching in the streets demanding political action because they don't feel safe around YOU. And let me ask you this: when it comes to that, are you willing to kill those women to keep your guns? Because THEY are the ones who the federal troops will obey. And THEY outnumber YOU.
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
And imposed a complete ban on firearms and other weapons ownership by Jewish citizens.
Lets be clear here, because there's an awful lot of misinformation on this topic.
Germany lost the First World War. And as a result, In 1919 and 1920 legislation was passed to disarm the Germans, both the military and the civilans. Civilian gun ownership was forbidden.
The 1928 Law on Firearms and Ammunition once again allowed private gun ownership.
From 1933, the German government started oppressing Jews. The first concentration camps were opened, and the first specifically antisemitic laws were passed.
The 1938 German Weapons Act further relaxed gun control.
On Nov 7th 1938, Kristallnacht happened. An early notable mass extermination and incarceration of the Jews.
On Nov 11th 1938, Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons. was created to stop the Jews fighting back.
So no, they didn't disarm them first. They oppressed them first.
And Germany isn't a parallel for current day gun control in the USA, as they were actually rearming the general populace at the time, not disarming them.
Those videos are party tricks, not what happens in real life as a gun nut is slaughtering people.
Magazine restrictions are for making stupid people feel safer.
Even if it were, that would still be worth it. Why shouldn't people feel safer, at a loss of nothing to the legitimate use of firearms.
No, not the cold. Think demographics and alcohol.
Most gun owners are quite responsible. Even these so called "assault weapons" constitute less than 5% of all gun related crimes.
And what percentage of guns are "assault weapons".
Ferraris aren't safer than Fords, just because more people die in Fords.
Should be 'New York Passes Useless Gun Control Law', since nothing in the law will make any positive difference in crime rates, and will only impact legal gun holders. My prediction is that like Chicago, New York will continue down the path of passing more and more restrictive gun control laws, which make it easier for criminals to commit more crimes and serve only to continue to drive their violent crime rates even higher above the national average. Meanwhile, I live in a community of over 600,000 people in a state with very few gun control laws (Arizona) that has a violent crime rate almost have the national average. Where I can open carry into a bank (and have) and no one runs out in fear, the tellers smile, say high, and take my deposit as if nothing was wrong.
Because nothing was wrong.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
And do you have any idea of the reasons for that ban?
At the time -- Clinton-era, think -- there was a major push by the anti-gun lobby. There was a major issue with gov't-funded research painting ridiculously poor pictures, using bad data and analysis, drawing bad conclusions, all in an effort to ban firearms.
Shit like the CDC and other health organizations deciding that they were going to start calling firearms a "national public health crisis" and other fear-mongering scare tactic bullshit.
Yes, government-funded research involving firearms isn't allowed -- because the government was using it as nothing more than a propaganda tool pushing a prohibitionist agenda.
Don't you wish you could get the government to stop fucking lying about things YOU care about?
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
Well, we have already lost all of our other rights. The right to own firearms is all we have left. Losing that is losing all that is left.
If it's truly come to the point where all other rights are gone, then passionate supporters of the Second Amendment have already utterly failed to defend the very reason that right exists in the first place: "being necessary to the security of a free State".
RANDY WEAVER?
You mean the guy whose family was murdered by Federal agents? Who was never convicted of a crime except for "FAILURE TO APPEAR"? That guy? The guy who didn't do anything wrong? That guy? The guy from Ruby Ridge?
Yeah, no, he didn't do anything wrong, bro. Just because the guy owned guns and killed federal agents doesn't mean he's a bad guy.
I mean, he is kinda a bad guy. I think he's racist. Yanno what, I know plenty of racists, of all colors and shapes and sizes. I'm not down with that, but no one's perfect.
But he did nothing that called for his family being murdered, and though he killed federal agents -- it was their fault. As it turns out, he was legally within his rights to do so. Imagine.
And maybe keep in mind that it was those trusted federal agents that shot his wife as she was holding their baby. Wanna know why they did that?
THEY THOUGHT THE FUCKING BABY WAS A WEAPON.
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
Nicely put. I pray to Jesus myself, but still think you're damn right. They are praying to Jesus *while going against his teachings.*
That means that when lions and bears and bobcats and coyotes come around, I prefer some firepower that's not from the French and Indian wars.
You live in an area with lions, bears, bobcats and coyotes? Really? I mean, really? You don't just live somewhere urban and like guns?
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
Perfectly.
You are welcome on my lawn.
But it Does Not Happen. There are no stories from the UK or France or Germany or Sweden of crazed killers who've cooked up some clever death dealing machine in their kitchen and then wreaked mayhem on the streets, are there? Mass killings in these countries are dramatically rarer than in the US, and still involve guns for the most part.
Well, *every single pistol* falls firmly into the "semi-auto" territory. You want to ban all pistols? Good luck with that. Since you cannot ban semi-auto firearms, clearly you have to ban everything that takes a detachable magazine, which is still almost every single semi-auto firearm. Well, clearly that won't work. We can't ban uncle Fred's deer gun. Hmmm. Let's just ban the ones that look evil. It won't really accomplish anything, but it will look like we do something.
I am sorry, but "common sense" when it comes to guns is anything but common if you don't know something about firearms. This is like asking the government to make laws concerning the internet when they really do not know enough about it -- just like SOPA. I am sure that the congressmen who tried to push SOPA thought that they were doing something that was "common sense" and the right thing.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
Interesting that most of Europe has a higher violent crime rate than the US, by a factor of 2 or 3. Britain has the highest violent crime rate in the EU.
Burglars prefer to rob occupied houses in the evening in disarmed societies because alarms will be off, the occupants have wallets and purses, and can be scared into opening safes and pointing out where the valuables are.
Burglars in the US prefer to rob empty houses in daylight when there is less likelihood of finding an armed occupant.
The statistics are quite clear on that.
The US has somewhere around 2M defensive gun uses a year, most involving just racking the slide or showing the gun, not even firing it. That's a lot of death and injury prevented, and it sure outweighs the killings, 2/3 of which are criminals killing criminals anyway.
The US murder rate is NOT connected to easy availability of guns; the murder rate using other than guns is higher than elsewhere too.
But our overall violent crime rate is way down, and most murder victims are criminals.
You could look up these and more actual facts with google. But I suspect your mind is already made up; guns are scary and evil and MUST BE STOPPED, never mind that none of the proposed laws would have prevented any of the massacres in the last 50 years.
What would stop massacres much quicker is getting rid of the gun-free zones. Let teachers and staff carry if they already have the conceal carry permit. Heck, even throw in extra mandatory training if that idea scares you too much. A study of stranger massacres stopped by an outsider, not counting family murder-suicides, found that those stopped by a called policeman had an average death rate of 14. Those stopped by someone on the spot, whether a civilian or off-duty police, had an average death rate of 2.x.
What's that you say, that CCW hodlers are useless and even dangerous?
The Clackamas mall shooter, who stole his killing rifle, was stopped by a CCW holder who pointed his gun at him but refrained from shooting because there were bystanders in the background; the killer shot himself at that point. Contrast that with the limited Empire State Building shooter, where all the bystander injuries, 9 of them, were caused by police engaging in a wild west shootout on a crowded street.
Florida, I believe, ran a study and found CCW holders commited far fewer crimes than off-duty police.
Oh, you want to ban "high capacity" magazines?
Jared Loughner, who shot Gabby Giffords and killed 12 (?) people in Arizona, was slowed down when his 33 round magazine jammed. I think the Aurora movie theater killer was similar stopped by a jammed "high capacity" magazine.
The Sandy Hook iller fired 150 shots in 20 minues (20 minutes! When seconds count, the police are only TWENTY MINUTES away!). That's 8 shots a minute, every 8 seconds. It takes 2-3 seconds to swap magazines. He was changing magazines long before than ran out. Do you really think 10 round magazines would have made any difference?
What's that you say, don't confused you with facts?
Google, buddy, look up some real facts and find some REAL ways to stop these massacres.
One of the most interesting things about gun grabbers is that all they care about is 20 dead children at a school; they utterly ignore any affect they might have on the 500 people who died in Chacago last year.
But think of the children, eh?
Infuriate left and right
That would explain the improvised bomb attacks that happen almost monthly in the UK, Canada, Australia, Germany...
That does indeed - note that GP said "crazy people". All countries that you've listed have well-developed and well-funded public healthcare systems that focus on early detection and prevention of issues, including mental health issues. The reason why you don't see improvised bomb (or knife, or firearm etc) attacks in UK, Canada, Australia, Germany - and let me also add some more countries to that list, like Switzerland and Finland and Czech Republic, countries where quite a few citizens own some pretty powerful guns - is because those countries have fewer crazies, and those crazies that they have are known and monitored.
Meanwhile, China and US are good examples of what happens when you basically leave people to deal with issues themselves, without society intervening. In both countries, you get numerous murder sprees every year. The choice of weapons is different because of what's readily available, but the underlying issue is the same, and it has to be resolved in the same manner.
That would explain the improvised bomb attacks that happen almost monthly in the UK, Canada, Australia, Germany...
Don't forget Israel. No improvised bomb attacks there.
Violence is largely an socio-economic symptom. The more poor and oppressed a society, the more violence will occur. The US has far worse income inequality than the UK, Canada, Australia and Germany. The US has more violent EVERYTHING, not just guns, than those countries, because there is simply more poverty here.
All those COP reality shows don't happen in the Hamptons. They happen in Compton.
That means that when lions and bears and bobcats and coyotes come around, I prefer some firepower that's not from the French and Indian wars.
You live in an area with lions, bears, bobcats and coyotes? Really? I mean, really? You don't just live somewhere urban and like guns?
I grew up in an area with all of the above, except lions. Calling 911 meant waiting 30+ minutes for a cop to arrive. Now it's worse, as there is one officer on duty after midnight for an area of over 1,600 sq miles (4,200 sq kms). There are no patrols between midnight and 6:00AM. You only get a response if the cop isn't busy with another response, It's a pretty heavily armed area.
I no longer live in the sticks, but I still have guns. I don't shoot at people, and I am mentally stable. My guns are locked in a safe. You shouldn't be worried about my guns; it's the kids in the 'hood 3 miles from my house that concern me.
I honestly think the real problem is how we communicate with each other. We used to be able to disagree, and be mostly civil. That hasn't been the case for long time, and it's gotten much worse in the past 10 to 20 years. The style of "discussion" heard on Fox news, (and I'm not blaming Fox) where everything is black & white, where everything is 100% right or dead-ass "you're a Nazi" wrong. This i where we have gone off the tracks, and people know no compromise.
You're talking about sociopaths.
You're probably right that the president and legislators are sociopaths, because the election process does a pretty good job of weeding out non-sociopaths. Nobody with normal human emotions could possibly do what it takes to win a typical modern contested election campaign.