New NY gun law

[theizzardking]

How do you define assault weapon? Do you consider any of the 157 weapons listed today ans "assault weapon"?

that's a stupid question, i don't define it as anything, it already has a definition, this is the problem with the conversation, is people have tried explaining the differences, tried explaining the nuances of what your trying to regulate and you don't friggn listen....you're to tied to your emotions to listen that basically any handgun or shotgun is just as dangerous as anything that is being labeled as an assault weapon in that list.....

The translation assault rifle gradually became the common term for similar firearms sharing the same technical definition as the StG 44. In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[4][5][6]

It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
It must be capable of selective fire;
It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable magazine rather than a feed-belt.
And it should at least have a firing range of 300 meters (1000 feet)

there you go, those are assault rifles,NOTE:

It must be capable of selective fire;

It must be capable of selective fire;

It must be capable of selective fire;

not what morons and the media are labeling as assault weapons......you start banning anything else your talking about being back in the days of black powder rifles.....EVERYTHING ELSE IS BASICALLY SEMI-AUTOMATIC.... it's just the means in which it repeats.....

more

Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles despite frequently being considered as such. For example, semi-automatic-only rifles like the AR-15 (on which the M16 rifle is based) that share parts or design characteristics with assault rifles are not assault rifles, as they are not capable of switching to automatic fire and thus are not selective-fire capable. Belt-fed weapons or rifles with fixed magazines are likewise not assault rifles because they do not have detachable box magazines.

semi-automatic-only rifles like the AR-15 (on which the M16 rifle is based) that share parts or design characteristics with assault rifles are not assault rifles, as they are not capable of switching to automatic fire

semi-automatic-only rifles like the AR-15 (on which the M16 rifle is based) that share parts or design characteristics with assault rifles are not assault rifles, as they are not capable of switching to automatic fire

semi-automatic-only rifles like the AR-15 are not assault rifles

 

[theizzardking]

If it is a simple count, then the crime stats are exactly what you'd expect: where there are more people we would expect more gun crimes. If it is a per capita rate, then that would tend to control for the density function (and would make it a much more interesting statistic). I just can't tell from the map which it is.

have at it i got it from this facebook page or backtrack the link, at this point i'm just playing a round
National Rifle Association: Oregon Members & Enthusiasts's photo.

 

[JohnnyT]

I just asked you a question and you launch into a rant? You need help.

If you consider all guns equally dangerous, then let's say my rules apply to all guns.

 

[mikebontoft]

I'm personally against ownership of assault weapons....but I believe you
numb-nuts should be able to own what you want.

So how about to own one......

- a thorough background and psychological test is performed every 2 yrs - owner covers cost
- up to 6 random unannounced inspections per year of the weapon and where it is stored and secured.
- 10 round magazine max
- no mods. Any evidence and it's confiscated.

This reasonable?

The mods part, within reason, should be allowed. obviously no button-bypassing and converting to auto.

Not sure what the background or psych evals every other year would do other than discourage responsible owners to buy them (which I take is your point :/) . Also not sure the purpose of random inspections, not to mention the resources required to carry out such actions. As I mentioned before, there are about 3k "assault rifles" within this county alone. Our police department could not handle up to 18k rifle checks per year (as your up-to-6-per-year limit mentions).

ten round is fine. just buy more mags.

Again, just my opinion.

Edit: and seriously WTF is with a million quotes up there izzard? damn.

 

[theizzardking]

I just asked you a question and you launch into a rant? You need help.

If you consider all guns equally dangerous, then let's say my rules apply to all guns.

i lunched into a rant because we are 14 pages into this and that has been mentioned just a few times....not all guns are equally as dangerous, assault weapons that fire fully auto are dangerous, that's why we have the set up on them that we have , you and most people didn't even know there was a lot of citizens out there with full on military machine guns as again , legal gun owners and the people who own guns today are not the ones committing violent gun crimes, it's gang bangers, husbands and wives and messed up teenagers....taking guns away from people who are already going into a stores and buying guns isn't going to do anything at all and at best all your doing is turning mass shootings into mass bombings, stupid people will always be stupid..... guns are Correlation, but not the causation, all this is doing is turning good citizens into criminals and disarming peoples right to defend their property and lives if need be ....that was not directed directly at you in particular, it was a complete and total rant in general :tongue1:, sorry mate :hug:

Again, just my opinion.

Edit: and seriously WTF is with a million quotes up there izzard? damn.

wasn't sure of reading comprehension level....didn't we just say what an assault rifle was 3~4 pages back? i know it was talked about before my stupidity interrupted...

 

[JohnnyT]

The mods part, within reason, should be allowed. obviously no button-bypassing and converting to auto.

Not sure what the background or psych evals every other year would do other than discourage responsible owners to buy them (which I take is your point :/) . Also not sure the purpose of random inspections, not to mention the resources required to carry out such actions. As I mentioned before, there are about 3k "assault rifles" within this county alone. Our police department could not handle up to 18k rifle checks per year (as your up-to-6-per-year limit mentions).

ten round is fine. just buy more mags.

Again, just my opinion.

Edit: and seriously WTF is with a million quotes up there izzard? damn.

Your psych eval gives me some comfort level as your neighbor that you are still that same responsible gun owner that originally bought the gun. If your wife died, you lost your job, your kids grew to hate you, or you just generally got sour on life, you may not be. As your neighbor who's kids might get home from school 3 hours before me, I'd like to know if your elevator still goes to the top and your not some "Adam Lanza" now.

As your neighbor, I'd demand some comfort knowing some 3rd party is keeping an eye on you. What's the harm if your still sane and you love your guns so much? I'd think you'd be glad to oblige. If not, we have a border to the north and one to the south and you're free to leave this great country anytime if you feel infringed.

Yes, you should be able to own what you want but it should be a little inconvenient for the sake of the rest of us. If you no like, too bad. Give up the gun. You can't have everything and anything.

I think that's more than reasonable.

 

[theizzardking]

Your psych eval gives me some comfort level as your neighbor that you are still that same responsible gun owner that originally bought the gun. If your wife died, you lost your job, your kids grew to hate you, or you just generally got sour on life, you may not be. As your neighbor who's kids might get home from school 3 hours before me, I'd like to know if your elevator still goes to the top and your not some "Adam Lanza" now.

As your neighbor, I'd demand some comfort knowing some 3rd party is keeping an eye on you. What's the harm if your still sane and you love your guns so much? I'd think you'd be glad to oblige. If not, we have a border to the north and one to the south and you're free to leave this great country anytime if you feel infringed.

Yes, you should be able to own what you want but it should be a little inconvenient for the sake of the rest of us. If you no like, too bad. Give up the gun. You can't have everything and anything.

I think that's more than reasonable.

how about i suggest you leave this great country as it is and move somewhere more in line with your view points..
CHINA

:rofl:

are you really suggesting mental health exams for gun owners? how about we just do this for everybody in the name of national security , because you never know when someone is going to sour and become a terrorist...i suck at it but you can at least apply a little bit of critical thinking, and this is the part that pisses me off about the whole thing and the rest in general, you and me shouldn't have to be coming up with well thought out and planned ideas, we have jobs,this sort of thing is what politicians are meant to be doing, we should be having nothing but stupid debates over the morality of it all, but instead our friggn politicians are arguing morality and we're having to come up with a reasonable ways to fix things, isn't that messed up?

 

[mikebontoft]

Ah I see... I left something out. My phone shut off and I had to come back and type it again. I do understand your point about a change in mental health. I have to ask though, what if your neighbor owns a gun that no one knows about? That means no evaluation necessary unless we require it for every citizen (unrealistic, but damn it could work).

It is easy enough to buy a rifle. I admit that while I don't think it will matter, I'd be fine if you had to get a permit to buy one. Extra tax money for the state and just as much of an inconvenience as a CCW permit. Makes you feel special if you wanna put it that way. ha

edit: no offense izzard. Just sick of reading this bickering between you guys. I've been responding to JohnnyT's posts because I've read stuff worth commenting on. Again, no offense.

 

[theizzardking]

yeah.....on that note : hey you guys ,i'm out!!!!

 

[JohnnyT]

Ah I see... I left something out. My phone shut off and I had to come back and type it again. I do understand your point about a change in mental health. I have to ask though, what if your neighbor owns a gun that no one knows about? That means no evaluation necessary unless we require it for every citizen (unrealistic, but damn it could work).

It is easy enough to buy a rifle. I admit that while I don't think it will matter, I'd be fine if you had to get a permit to buy one. Extra tax money for the state and just as much of an inconvenience as a CCW permit. Makes you feel special if you wanna put it that way. ha

edit: no offense izzard. Just sick of reading this bickering between you guys. I've been responding to JohnnyT's posts because I've read stuff worth commenting on. Again, no offense.

No solution is 100%. If you cover most of your goal, you're happy. If there's a gun that flies under th radar, then if that owner is ever found out, then he suffers considerable consequences (e.g. Loss of all guns, arrest, etc). It's their risk to take.

Evaluations and inspections will create jobs, feed families, stimulate the economy, and all that crap.

If a new bill was going to be passed and it was either my plan or the plan you heard about yesterday, which would you choose?

 

[Thai]

If Johnny T ever becomes a politician, then I am going change profession to a licensed psychologist!! I will be a billionaire!!! We barely have enough psych professionals and resources to screen the current crazies!!! Good luck!

 

[hube01]

If Johnny T ever becomes a politician, then I am going change profession to a licensed psychologist!! I will be a billionaire!!! We barely have enough psych professionals and resources to screen the current crazies!!! Good luck!

Before you read the rest of this I want you to sit down! I completely agree with you in that we do not have the resources to take care of all the mentally ill! All one has to do is walk into any emergency department and see just how few social workers, or other phych professionals there are compared to the amount of patients strapped to a stretcher. I wonder if HIPPAA regulations need to be changes? Maybe mandate all health professionals to report those mentally ill?

Your thoughts?

 

[shadow247]

No solution is 100%. If you cover most of your goal, you're happy. If there's a gun that flies under th radar, then if that owner is ever found out, then he suffers considerable consequences (e.g. Loss of all guns, arrest, etc). It's their risk to take.

Evaluations and inspections will create jobs, feed families, stimulate the economy, and all that crap.

If a new bill was going to be passed and it was either my plan or the plan you heard about yesterday, which would you choose?

This is classic broken window fallacy. Lets create a problem, then create more jobs to solve that problem!

 

[KCcarguy]

Here's what I think would be a reasonable compromise:

-Harsh penalties for violent crime. Most shooting deaths are committed by repeat offensers.

-Clinton-style AWB...but not as extenisve as Feinstein's. No magazines over 10 rnds and no rifles with more than two military characteristics. Grandfather-in existing guns like the Clinton ban.

-registration with background checks for all guns and sales should transfer like selling a car. But the process should be convenient and quick. No punitive tax either.

-change FCCs standards or graphic violence on network and primetime TV. Change rating
system for video games, movies and TV. IMO graphic violence is no better than graphic sex and ratings should reflect that.

-do something, including public service messeges, to limit exposure of kids under 14 to violnet video games like COD, etc.

-conduct a study into the feasability of placing armed retired police officers at schools.

-put in place a policy limiting coverage of the murderer in mass shootings to reduce the "instant celebrity" motivation.

 

[Thai]

Before you read the rest of this I want you to sit down! I completely agree with you in that we do not have the resources to take care of all the mentally ill! All one has to do is walk into any emergency department and see just how few social workers, or other phych professionals there are compared to the amount of patients strapped to a stretcher. I wonder if HIPPAA regulations need to be changes? Maybe mandate all health professionals to report those mentally ill?

Your thoughts?

I don't know what the solution to HIPAA restrictions. But, what Johnny T suggested is crazy! In addition, his suggestions also limit gun ownership to only the rich. Lets face it...paying CASH to go see psychologist or psychiatrist every 2 years is super expensive. So, in essence, the liberals (those who think Johnny T's idea is brilliant) just discriminate against the very souls that they pledge to protect. :flame: Who will protect the reggers: of the slums against the thugs who idolizes the rapper 50 Cent???

As i wrote above, these damn liberals and their profuse diarrhea of policies will only put more guns into the hands of Americans than ever before. Thanks! The only problem for me is finding ammos because people are stockpiling them! Obama is really helping NRA indirectly!

 

[Reino]

-registration with background checks for all guns and sales should transfer like selling a car. But the process should be convenient and quick. No punitive tax either.

Are you saying you want a government database of each gun possessed by individuals. That's not a compromise! Registration leads to confiscation.

 

[Reino]

This article is alarming: Daily Kos: How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process

Read the comments as well. These people are 100% SERIOUS. I can't believe these people actually exist! Joe McCarthy is rolling in his grave.:flame:

 

[KCcarguy]

Are you saying you want a government database of each gun possessed by individuals. That's not a compromise! Registration leads to confiscation.

That's a possibility, albeit unlikely. Maybe if the state AGs kept them rather than federal entities, that would help. I understand both sides of this argument, and there's no easy answer.

For the record, I think any legislative response to the tragedy in CT is probably more a feel-good response to a very heart-breaking situation than an effective tool for reducing crime.

 

[bofa]

Here's what I think would be a reasonable compromise:

-Harsh penalties for violent crime. Most shooting deaths are committed by repeat offensers.

There are harsh penalties for violent crimes already. The problem is funding and society make it too compelling to give early release and second chances. Stop letting the crooks out or make the death penalty easier to use.

-Clinton-style AWB...but not as extenisve as Feinstein's. No magazines over 10 rnds and no rifles with more than two military characteristics. Grandfather-in existing guns like the Clinton ban.

Absolutely not. What makes a rifle with 3 "military characteristics" any more deadly than a rifle with none? In the wrong hands, it doesn't matter. The mag cap thing is just a dart on a dartboard. It takes less than 5 seconds to reload a magazine for most people. What will the extra 10 seconds buy us (10 rd vs 30rd)?

-registration with background checks for all guns and sales should transfer like selling a car. But the process should be convenient and quick. No punitive tax either.

Nope... registration is only daunting for legal owners. People that buy on the black market or steal them will not register, thus this registry is useless and give the govt more info than they need. Most of these tragedies have been committed with guns that were illegally obtained already. You think they would stop to register them before a rampage?

-change FCCs standards or graphic violence on network and primetime TV. Change rating
system for video games, movies and TV. IMO graphic violence is no better than graphic sex and ratings should reflect that.

No, the problem is parents. People probably shouldn't allow their children to watch shows that are meant for older ages and shouldn't be buying them 'M' rated video games. The effects of both are, in my opinion, purely speculation or coincidence. I've watched violent movies since I was a kid. I've played violent video games since I was a kid. I've been around guns and knives since I was a kid. I've also had a pretty challenging life... and I've never gone off the deep end or felt compelled to do so.

-do something, including public service messeges, to limit exposure of kids under 14 to violnet video games like COD, etc.

Yes, lets spend more money on public messages... because that's really worked in the past. How about this... how about we start licensing parenting instead? Make them complete courses, check for financial and social responsibility, proper budgeting and medical coverage, and intelligence, and then hit them with a fat registration fee for each one they pop out. That ought to weed out some of these duds. (Most of this is for humor, but there is some sincerity there as well)

-conduct a study into the feasability of placing armed retired police officers at schools.

Why retired? If we're going to have armed guards, especially considering we could probably only afford a couple per school, I would want the most able person for the job. I'm not saying a retired person automatically couldn't do it, but why limit it? We aren't hiring for Walmart. How about returning veterans that get certified to work with children and have CQC training?

-put in place a policy limiting coverage of the murderer in mass shootings to reduce the "instant celebrity" motivation.

This I agree with. Any mass murderer should be assigned a random alpha-numeric number, to be determined after the crime, and that should be the only thing used to reference them going forward. News stations should be limited to reporting verified facts only in these scenarios and prohibited from showing pictures of the crime scenes or the killers unless there is a specific public need.

Sorry, I don't see how most of this addresses the problem. These are mostly "feel good" measures that impede on those already following the law. "A" for effort, but I'm not a fan. The only compromising is on the part of those already following the law. The govt takes, we give, and the criminals carry on business as usual.

 

[H2O_Doc]

This I agree with. Any mass murderer should be assigned a random alpha-numeric number, to be determined after the crime, and that should be the only thing used to reference them going forward. News stations should be limited to reporting verified facts only in these scenarios and prohibited from showing pictures of the crime scenes or the killers unless there is a specific public need.

So take away our first amendment rights?