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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Become president of the USA, start arbitrary illegal wars and keep a personal kill list.
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.
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.
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.
The BIG convenience of owning a gun and ammunition is that I can take my amphetami^D^D^D prescription meds, drink a shot of jack and then impulsively decide to unload said gun on anyone that is within range, immediately, with immediate effect and a very low risk of danger to self.
The BIG convenience of owning a gun and ammunition is that I can take my gun and ammunition and defend my home from you, immediately, with immediate effect, without the high risk of waiting 20 minutes for the police to arrive.
And for dropping someone jacked up on drugs, 7 rounds might not be enough to get the job done definitively.
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!"
Bleach and ammonia = mustard gas /.), but mustard gas is C4H8Cl2S. Where's the sulfur in bleach(NaClO) or Ammonia(NH4OH), hint there isn't any. Hell, you don't even have any carbons either, so no, you cannot make a "mustard" gas out of bleach and ammonia(you'll make some nasty chlorinated ammonia compounds, but not mustard). Still it is a bad idea to mix the two, so don't.
Sorry to be pedantic(not really, this is
I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
...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.
Law abiding people won't bring guns into a "gun free zone", like schools, malls, etc. Criminals and mass murderers do so often. The results are predictable.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
No criminal will dare violate the law now.
Most rampage killers are common citizens until the day they do the unthinkable.
So now you want to treat the average citizen as a criminal as they "may" do something unthinkable?
Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
No, I need the assault rifle to stop the government from taking away my assault rifle... not sure if I'm serious or not. Sigh.
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.
He is probably referring to Phosgene, not Mustard Gas. And he forgot to include some Comet cleanser in the mix. It adds oxidizers in the form of 1.2% sodium dichloro-s-triazinetrione dihydrate (a derivative of cyanuric acid).
Nasty stuff.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
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.
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.
One slight flaw: assault weapons are designed for one purpose - to kill lots of other people quickly. For cars that's only a secondary effect, their primary purpose is transportation. Clothing and luggage are rarely fatal.
Does it really matter what something was designed to do if it's almost never used for that purpose?
I mean, yes, a grenade was designed to explode and kill/injure people nearby. It *can* be used as a baseball, but that's just foolish and stupid and it's never actually used for that.
The vast, overwhelming majority all "assault weapons" like the AR-15 are used for perfectly legitimate purposes, like recreational, sport, and competitive shooting (they're exceedingly common at high-end competitions like the National Matches). Their popularity in hunting is increasing as hunters realize that having a lightweight, durable, rugged, and reliable gun that fires the same ammo as "traditional-looking hunting rifles" can be useful.
They're almost never used in crime: FBI crime stats show that rifles of any kind (including "assault weapons") are used in about 3.7% of all firearm-related homicides and that number has been decreasing year over year for decades.
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.
An AR-15 is not an assault weapon. It is single fire, in the same way that a hunting rifle is, and the same way that a handgun/revolver is. One bullet per trigger pull. It was already illegal to own an assault rifle. That is until they change the definition. Sort of how anyone is a potential terrorist.
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
Automatic weapons have been heavily restricted since 1934 and any machine gun manufactured after 1986 is illegal for private sale. No legally-owned machine guns have been used in crime in decades, as they're almost exclusively owned by wealthy collectors.
The AR-15, while it looks like the M16, is functionally identical to many other civilian-legal firearms in that it only fires one shot per pull of the trigger. It's not very commonly used in massacres of any type, as handguns are much more frequently used in such situations (handguns are also very commonly used for self-defense. Rifles of any kind, including AR-15s, were used in only 3.7% of gun-related homicides in 2011 and have been trending downwards for years.
It's a very common misconception that just because a gun (say the AR-15) looks like a machine gun (say the M16), then it is a machine gun. This is not true, though I don't fault you for being somewhat confused.
ObSlashdotCarAnalogy: A Honda Civic with a spoiler, a stripe, some racing stickers, and a stock engine may look like a race car, but it's functionally no different than a normal Civic or other common cars.
AR-15s are very commonly used for recreational, sport, and competitive shooting (including the National Matches). There's no real pressing or justifiable reason to ban or restrict them.
Gun-related crime rates haven't been this low since 1964.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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