New NY gun law

[scanny]

Not quite.. So he gets back in his car, and leaves and 15 MINUTES later he gets back with a shotgun he was able to buy at a pawn shop... Now obviously there's no reason you would need a gun on such short notice for anything legal, but the law allows it. So now he shoots at them, she runs, he chases her into the neighbors yard and pumps her full of lead in the back.. Kills her. Now I'm not telling y'all this to say ban guns or w.e, but this happened in my neighborhood, and I think with slightly more regulation on gun trade that kind of disaster could be avoided. Just don't think it can't happen to someone you know.
.

No offense, but that sounds really funny to me. Guns are not the only way to kill. I don't have any suggestions on gun control, but in places where guns are not readily available that fella would garb an axe/club/hammer/knife/sword - you name it. result will be the same.

 

[wadle5]

This is actually in the code.

Spengler was provided firearms illegaly from a lawful owner.
Sandy Hook is still being sorted out and those firearms were obtained illegally from a lawful owner.
Columbine happened during the last firearm ban.

I could go on but this thread is likely already doomed... sorry New Yorkers. The only good news about them being first is that it may prove, in time, that criminals don't give a rats ass about new laws, before it goes federal.

over half of the cases stated they assailant did NOT use "assault" weapons of high power or high capacity magazine. . .again no justification. Your example of Spengler proved me right. . .he ILLEGALY obtained them.

 

[Reino]

Hahaha good luck shooting that F-117 or Abrams with your AR. And thats assuming you dont get hit by a laser guided missile prior haha. And I don't know what any law abiding citizen needs a 35 round mag for.. I've never seen 30 hogs or deer in one field, but I have seen 30 kids in one classroom. And if it was a 15 round mag maybe someone would have been able to tackle the assailant while he reloaded. Don't know why this convo went personal, just a debate.

Hey bud, what does a citizen need a 4Runner for?

ANSWER: It's none of MY damn business!

Why are liberals so obsessed with "WHY" somebody else "NEEDS" something? What part of "ITS NOT YOUR BUSINESS" don't you seem to understand?

 

[Reino]

What I think is absurd is that gun laws are in the hands of the state. I think gun laws should be federal. Some states gun laws are too strict, while others are too lenient. NJ, for example is way too strict. The fact that you're not allowed to conceal carry is insane. Only 1500 people in the state are permitted to conceal carry. I was at a restaurant the other night and thought, if some psycho walked in with a gun and started firing off, nobody would be able to get their gun out and shoot him down. The same goes for schools and gun-free malls, etc.

Let me get this straight: you think that concentrating gun legislation at the FEDERAL level will result in MORE LENIENT laws?

:wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow:

 

[Upchk]

I'm in favor of tougher gun laws in the 'blue states'. This will cause every gun-owning Patriot to move the hell out of New York, etc. and into 'red states', which will eventually lead to less electoral college votes in the 'blue states' and more in the 'red states'. Keep it up...

I would welcome that as long as we could trade our libs up to the blue states...

 

[wadle5]

See, the problem is there really isn't such a thing as an "assault weapon." It's just a creation. It's nothing more than a name that Democrats and people on the left created to gin up anti-gun sentiment among people. But there really is no official classification of "assault weapon." It doesn't exist. What gun isn't an assault weapon? I mean, even if you're shooting skeet you're assaulting the skeet. So the title here is purely a psychological creation.

The intent of the second amendment was not for self defense, hunting, or sport, but rather to protect the citizens from tyranny. The second amendment, you will note, does not say anything about the right to bear small arms but rather the right to bear arms. You will also note that it does not say shotguns, rifles or handguns, it says arms.

A milita is a group of ordinary citizens who are called upon to provide defense. As such the interpretation of the law is that the right is intended for individuals, the basis of a militia.

In regards to arms it was a much smaller arsenal in the 1700's and consisted primarily of muskets and canons.which raises the question that if the amendment was intended only for small arms why didn't it exclude military grade weaponry such as canons....

I also agree that you should not be able to sell weapons without a background check, however if you are able to complete a background check than what right does the government have to deny you the rights set forth in the constitution?

To think that banning specific components that make a gun(not a weapon) an assault rifle does not make sense. Making it only possible to use smaller clips wont matter in the chance of another shooting, it takes less then 3 seconds to switch out a magazine. Most of these shootings you will actually find out that when they went to obtain a gun legally they were denied, because the current background checks and rulings work. Most weapons used in murders are illegally obtained which goes to prove that if someone is going to find a gun to do wrong and cant obtain it legally they will do whatever they can to obtain it, even if it means going through illegal ways.

With over 55,000 gun dealers and 300,000,000 guns the percentage of such guns used for assaulting others (that is shooting others) must be quite small. Given the concern about the means of evil it would only be prudent to have similar comparisons with automobiles, knives (same day as Connecticut massacre, a Chinese man enters a school and attacks over 20 with a kinife because I presume China outlaws personal gun ownership), baseball bats (in New York City, the most often used assualt weapon for murder--New York City has gun ban) and let's not forget forceps as a means for abortion.

Addressing the means is more 'feel good' legislation without getting at the core as broached via my unanswered questions earlier in this protracted discussion.

The automobile, knife, bat, forceps is no more an "occasion of sin" then the gun in my safe. Yet, all such instruments are weapons of assualt when used to harm innocent people.

11 bullets is extreme when one precise placement of weaponry used could similarly kill. Thus if I harbor evil intent and become skilled with my choice of weapon (in this case guns), I may effect my intent with one shot. Take away the multiple round magazines (military person corrected me noting clips reflects an 'attached' grouping of ammunition to feed a magazine whereas the magazine feeds the weapon) and less evil carnage may ensue, but nonetheless evil. The relativistic banning of so-called assault weapons (see prior discussion about reality that anything used to harm and or kill others is an assault weapon) reflects dramatic rhetoric of impotence....'feel good' legislation.

Again, point is gun control as an isolated intervention does not work to curb evil acts of others. Why not address the source vs. an isolated pathway? (Again, I don't anticipate an answer)

Regarding influence on youth, absolutely; thus back to games, films, literature, and media running an re-running/dissecting (often inaccurate)/disseminating the story. So where is legislation paired with gun control to address all the these 'feeders' of demonic demolition.

 

[TOY2G]

Addressing the means is more 'feel good' legislation without getting at the core as broached via my unanswered questions earlier in this protracted discussion.

in one painfully clear sentence you sum it all up

thank you

 

[NJshadow93]

Who is forcing you to live in New Jersey? Exactly. You're free to move to a state with better gun laws. The federal government should have a minimal impact on what the individual states do especially concerning gun rights and laws. Obviously they are trying to disarm you so why would you want to support them in doing that?

Unfortunately, until I finish school, get a degree, and start a career, I'm basically stuck here. That's beside the point. My point is that how does it make sense to have gun laws be controlled by the state whereas other laws such as drinking age, for example, are federal?

Let me get this straight: you think that concentrating gun legislation at the FEDERAL level will result in MORE LENIENT laws?

:wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow:

Did I say that? No. My point is that it does not make sense, to me, to have different gun laws in different states. I know people that go to Pennsylvania go buy their guns because of their more lenient gun laws there (including less steps to getting one, bigger inventory, and better pricing). I did not say that a federal gun law will be more/less lenient at all. I mentioned New Jersey and now Pennsylvania (one has really strict gun laws, one has more lenient gun laws) in the same country (even same part of the country) should have the same or similar gun laws.

 

[Reino]

See, the problem is there really isn't such a thing as an "assault weapon." It's just a creation. It's nothing more than a name that Democrats and people on the left created to gin up anti-gun sentiment among people. But there really is no official classification of "assault weapon." It doesn't exist. What gun isn't an assault weapon? I mean, even if you're shooting skeet you're assaulting the skeet. So the title here is purely a psychological creation.

Exactly. This is I politely correct my friends (who simply don't know any better), that my AR is a 'defense weapon'.

 

[Reino]

Unfortunately, until I finish school, get a degree, and start a career, I'm basically stuck here. That's beside the point. My point is that how does it make sense to have gun laws be controlled by the state whereas other laws such as drinking age, for example, are federal?



Did I say that? No. My point is that it does not make sense, to me, to have different gun laws in different states. I know people that go to Pennsylvania go buy their guns because of their more lenient gun laws there (including less steps to getting one, bigger inventory, and better pricing). I did not say that a federal gun law will be more/less lenient at all. I mentioned New Jersey and now Pennsylvania (one has really strict gun laws, one has more lenient gun laws) in the same country (even same part of the country) should have the same or similar gun laws.

Anytime you concentrate power in the Federal government, the result is the most restrictive common denominator. Giving up state control of gun legislation would create 50 New Yorks.

 

[NJshadow93]

Anytime you concentrate power in the Federal government, the result is the most restrictive common denominator. Giving up state control of gun legislation would create 50 New Yorks.

I absolutely see your point. Especially with this current administration. I would just like to see all states be in the same ballpark when it comes to gun laws; not necessarily increasing the power of the federal government.

 

[mikebontoft]

JUSTIFICATION:
On Monday December 24, 2012, William Spengler, Jr., reported a fire to
the local fire department in Webster, NY. Then he waited with three
guns, one of which was an assault rifle,
for the firefighters to arrive. He killed two and seriously wounded
two others. Mr. Spengler was a convicted felon, and as such, was
prohibited by law from owning firearms. Somehow, he
managed to obtain them anyway. This horrendous incident, the massacre
at Sandy Hook
Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut ten days earlier, in which
20 six and seven year-olds and 6 faculty and staff were murdered
execution-style, and other mass shootings that have occurred -
Columbine High School, where 12 students and one teacher were killed
and 21 injured, the Clackamas Town Center Mall in Oregon, where 2


people were killed and 1 wounded, the Sikh Temple in Oak Creek,
Wisconsin where 6 people were killed and 4 wounded, the Century Movie
Theater in Aurora, Colorado, where 12 people were killed and 58
wounded, and in broad daylight, Tucson. Arizona where six people were
killed and 11 wounded, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords,
who was severely wounded - clearly point to the need to ban
assault-style weapons, for stricter gun control laws and increased
criminal sanctions.

This legislation: updates and improves the description of an assault
weapon; prohibits large capacity ammunition feeding devices
regardless of when they were manufactured; increases the criminal
sanction for possession of an assault weapon or large capacity
ammunition feeder from a D felony to a B felony, increases criminal
sanctions for other gun-related crimes by one felony degree, and
creates the new crime of unlawful possession of a firearm upon school
grounds in the first and second degrees.

Interesting load of crap.

For you guys that think they're gonna come door to door asking for people to hand over their guns, it will never happen. And I mean that in the sense that if they somehow pass a bill to make it possible, it still won't happen. Think of the resources necessary... and we're talking armed officers knocking on every single door.

For that matter, there's maybe 2k residents in my county that own "assault rifles." It just won't happen.

 

[02SE]

Hypocrisy in action.

 

[04rnr]

Cigarette smoking is estimated to cause the following:
• 443,000 deaths annually (including deaths from secondhand smoke)
• 49,400 deaths per year from secondhand smoke exposure
• 269,655 deaths annually among men
• 173,940 deaths annually among women
CDC - Fact Sheet - Fast Facts - Smoking & Tobacco Use

Why no ban on high compacity cigarette cartons ?

Drunk drivers kill on average 30 people per day:
How big is the problem?
•In 2010, 10,228 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (31%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.1
•Of the 1,210 traffic deaths among children ages 0 to 14 years in 2010, 211 (17%) involved an alcohol-impaired driver.1
•Of the 211 child passengers ages 14 and younger who died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes in 2010, over half (131) were riding in the vehicle with the alcohol-impaired driver.1
•In 2010, over 1.4 million drivers were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics.3 That's one percent of the 112 million self-reported episodes of alcohol-impaired driving among U.S. adults each year.4

CDC - Impaired Driving Facts - Motor Vehicle Safety - Injury Center
why no ban on high compacity gas tanks on cars ?

 

[AnthonyMV]

Errrm.....

Dehhhhh
Gunz killz peeples
Not peeple killz peeplezzzzz

Only in amerika......

I luv nancee pelow cee
Oh and that grease ball cuomo
Good guy

 

[Kraeken]

I read most of it and it doesn't really seem 'absurd' to me.. Don't know why a normal person, even one that likes to hunt or shoot needs guns with drums or belts or huge clips..

And as far as the second amendment goes, it was written in a time where they were firing muskets.. Like pour powder down, place ball, pack powder, put firing cap on, then shoot from close distance.. I don't think they intended every citizen (including the mentally handicapped and insane) to be able to wield assault rifles with 40 round mags.. I'm all for the right to bear arms but their needs to be stricter legislation on the sale of guns.. As of now you can walk into a gun shop/show, buy 30 guns "for your personal use" then decide you don't want them and sell them out of your trunk to anyone.. That shouldn't be legal.. Just my $.02

I had to stop reading the thread here to respond to this. Even before the Second Amendment was written there were semi automatic and indeed automatic weapons, and the signers of the constitution were aware of their existence. Look it up. They almost bought a lot of them.

I'm kind of getting tired of the weak gun control arguments. The second amendment guarantees us the right to protect ourselves as individuals and as a citizenry. This means, and has always meant, to be able to competently defend yourself with equal or greater force than your attacker, be it the four meth heads that kick your back door in or the soldiers of an oppressive government. This concept of defense held true in the stone age, 18th century, and it holds true today.

Also- You are responsible for our actions. You alone. A gun, like a knife, a rolled up magazine, a brick, a potted plant- these are just things. Things do not make you act. You make you act. The concept of personal responsibility is another one that has been lost. A gun does not make you shoot anyone. You make that decision. Period.

The USA has a poor history of knee-jerk legislation. This is no different. As usual, as has been proven almost everywhere else in the world where a government has disarmed its citizens, violent crimes go up, law abiding people cannot defend themselves against a greater threat, and sadly, governments eventually become tyrannical. You can look this up as well.

My wife and I are law abiding gun owners, and our rights are infringed yet again. Sometime this year we are expected to get rid of our ten round magazines (a form of confiscation) while the non- law abiding person casing our home may have a 30 round magazine.

I don't have the insane storied career that many on this forum have, but I have worked my entire adult life in slums. I have also responded to different places in this country during disasters, and have seen personally what happens when people can not defend themselves adequately.

 

[BucknutBob]

Okay, let's have a show of hands--who has EVER seen a GUN commit a crime of any kind? Anyone? Who here thinks a CRIMINAL gives a crap what kind of gun control law is passed? They're CRIMINALS--they'll do what they please, including buying guns illegally to commit their crimes. People get all fired up about flying because they heard of a plane crash, without considering the FACT that there were MILLIONS of safe flights between every widely-publicized crash. The FACTS regarding legal gun ownership in comparison to guns used to kill are just as absurd, yet we never get to hear that because the media is controlled by the same liberals that want to take away our rights. Another show of hands--who here is foolish enough to think the banning of "assault weapons" will be the end of this? They're just starting with the most extreme end to gain a foothold--once the momentum builds, kiss the other categories goodbye, too. How many freedoms must we lose before people wake up?

 

[JohnnyT]

@ jam46283- you couldn't be further from the truth and the the most inept gunowner of all time. It is illegal in ALL states to do what you are saying. An individual has to have a Federal Firearms License to buy and sell guns like that. The 2nd amendment states to have the same weapons as the government has to be able to overthrow them in the event that the citizens need new representation. Read the 2nd amendment in its entirety- its NOT for hunting or sports.

But if the "criminals" are able to get just about anything, then why can't I get one too?

You know they'll be able to get one of the "fed only" guns. It's all about who you know, right?

Where does it stop?

 

[JohnnyT]

Okay, let's have a show of hands--who has EVER seen a GUN commit a crime of any kind? Anyone? Who here thinks a CRIMINAL gives a crap what kind of gun control law is passed? They're CRIMINALS--they'll do what they please, including buying guns illegally to commit their crimes. People get all fired up about flying because they heard of a plane crash, without considering the FACT that there were MILLIONS of safe flights between every widely-publicized crash. The FACTS regarding legal gun ownership in comparison to guns used to kill are just as absurd, yet we never get to hear that because the media is controlled by the same liberals that want to take away our rights. Another show of hands--who here is foolish enough to think the banning of "assault weapons" will be the end of this? They're just starting with the most extreme end to gain a foothold--once the momentum builds, kiss the other categories goodbye, too. How many freedoms must we lose before people wake up?

It's simply a proposal presented so they can say they tried SOMETHING. After the outcry after this shooting, did you honestly expect the govt to do nothing?

If it doesn't pass, they can say they tried and Congress looks real bad again. If it passes, it's a step or two that they can say was taken, then 1-2 years from now they can show some stats (real or imagined) that will show how things are "better", and they can claim success.

Either way, It will go no further. Thinking that anyone will ever "take my guns away" is absurd.

Personally, I hate guns and anything to do with them. A good can of bear spray under the kitchen sink and in my truck that can hit a target from 30ft away along with a Louisville Slugger is reasonable and good enough for me.

 

[Kraeken]

Either way, It will go no further. Thinking that anyone will ever "take my guns away" is absurd.

Personally, I hate guns and anything to do with them. A good can of bear spray under the kitchen sink and in my truck that can hit a target from 30ft away along with a Louisville Slugger is reasonable and good enough for me.

I guess you weren't in New Orleans after Katrina when the NOLA police went door to door confiscating guns...

I also have a little experience with pepper spray indoors. First, by the time you get to it there may already be 15 bullets coming in your direction. Bear spray doesn't stop that. What it will do, is make the environment toxic for everyone including yourself... But possibly not the crazed drugged out psycho who still has a gun. There are definitely circumstances when less than lethal, and indeed lethal, force doesn't stop someone right away. You can do amazing things to people and they will keep coming. The idea is to defend yourself with more force than your attacker.