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.

30 of 1,591 comments (clear)

  1. Re:We need gas control! by GenieGenieGenie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  2. Chicken or Egg? by emmjayell · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Chicken or Egg? by hsmith · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Lets say, you like firearms. But, lets say you are going through some troubling times personally and need to see a therapist.

      We've seen the same thing in the military, people are afraid to ask for help, because they will be branded as having mental health problems and no longer be allowed to serve.

      So, will the problem be made worse now?

      Personally, I know this isn't a gun problem, it is a mental health problem. Mentally health people don't go mow down other human beings - only those with severe mental deficiencies do.

    2. Re:Chicken or Egg? by RPI+Geek · · Score: 5, Informative

      How about house-holding - if someone in the same residence is a registered gun owner, will they be forced to surrender their weapons?

      From the bill:

      Safe Storage

      To prevent, among other things, unauthorized and unlicensed use of guns, section 47 of the bill adds a new Penal Law 265.45 establishing safe storage requirements for rifles, shotguns and firearms. Under this new section, a gun owner who lives with someone who the owner has reason to know is prohibited from possessing a gun because the prohibited person has been convicted of a crime punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year, has been adjudicated mentally defective or committed to a mental institution, is subject to a court order of protection or has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence whose sentence has been completed in the last five years must, when the gun is out of the owner's immediate control, keep the gun secured in a safe storage depository (for example, a safe or similar secure container with a lock that can be opened only with a key or combination, or other locking mechanism) or render it incapable of being fired by putting a safety lock on the gun.

      --

      - "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"
  3. And what does it solve exactly? by hsmith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:And what does it solve exactly? by swillden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How about the background check requirements? Do you think those accomplish anything, or not? The reason I ask is that in recent polling, a majority of gun owners support increased use of background checks to allow law-abiding and sane citizens to obtain guns more easily than criminals or insane people.

      This position ignores the other effect of restrictions on the mentally ill... it discourages people from seeking help when they need it. This is already a huge problem in the United States, because of the stigma associated with mental illness, and more restrictions and especially mandatory reporting requirements -- because the info will be used for other purposes as well -- will exacerbate the problem. We need to provide greater access to treatment, not discourage people from seeking it.

      We've already seen many cases of veterans avoiding treatment because the VA started reporting PTSD and other mental illnesses to the states for background check disqualification. So much so that the VA is reconsidering that policy, in spite of the military's large concerns about the potential for bad PR which could land on them if they "knew" a given soldier was dangerous and didn't act.

      Also, how about the smaller magazine requirements? Do those do anything to reduce the number of murders (the idea being reduce the number of shots fired before a shooter has to reload or switch weapons)?

      I see no statistical evidence that it will change anything. If you compare the outcomes of mass shootings performed by weapons with large vs small magazines there's no evidence that restricting magazine size will change the outcomes. Shooters with smaller magazines carry more of them (and reloading is a very fast operation, especially with a little practice), or carry more guns -- and changing guns takes virtually no time at all. In fact, the practice of grabbing another gun when your current gun is empty is often called a "New York reload".

      So, no, as with most gun control legislation, this will inconvenience the law-abiding without significantly impacting mass shooting violence. And it will have no effect whatsoever on other gun crime, except to create a bunch of criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens who will refuse to give up their now-banned guns.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  4. Re:We need gas control! by dave420 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:We need gas control! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Become president of the USA, start arbitrary illegal wars and keep a personal kill list.

  6. Re:Seems perfectly reasonable by hsmith · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  7. Re:We need gas control! by smpoole7 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  8. Re:Seems perfectly reasonable by johnlcallaway · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  9. no cool off by nten · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  10. Re:Seems perfectly reasonable by Culture20 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  11. Re:Ban Walmart by mortonda · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  12. Re:Seems perfectly reasonable by RPI+Geek · · Score: 5, Informative

    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!"
  13. Re:We need gas control! by Vicarius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...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.

  14. Re:We need gas control! by Jason+Levine · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  15. Re:Seems perfectly reasonable by Bartles · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  16. Re:Some good parts, but some rather absurd parts by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The 'one feature' or 'two feature' generally does nothing to alter the functionality of the weapon. It is purely cosmetic. Different stock, different grip, different barrel. I used to own an AR-7. Small .22lr survival rifle. It could be changed from a now illegal (in NY) assault rifle to a legal hunting rifle in about 30 seconds, by simply changing the stock. It would still fire exactly the same.

  17. Re:We need gas control! by smpoole7 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > 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.
  18. Re:We need gas control! by akboss · · Score: 5, Informative

    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."
  19. Re:We need gas control! by jedidiah · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  20. Re:Ban Walmart by chill · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  21. Re:We need gas control! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  22. Re:We need gas control! by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  23. Re:We need gas control! by Eunuchswear · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  24. Re:We need gas control! by gewalker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  25. Re:We need gas control! by BasilBrush · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  26. Re:We need gas control! by Kreigaffe · · Score: 5, Informative

    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. :|
  27. Re:We need gas control! by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?