New York Passes Landmark Gun Law 1591
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.
We need gas control! (Score:1, Insightful)
Considering how easy it would be to set off some of those cheap Blue-Rhino propane tanks and get a similar death-toll, I hop that NYC is going to have gas control next on the agenda.
Seems perfectly reasonable (Score:0, Insightful)
Sensible changes to how one legally acquires a gun and increased penalties for violence. Nobody's TERKIN YER GERNS. See how easy that is?
I feel safer already. (Score:3, Insightful)
No criminal will dare violate the law now.
Re:We need gas control! (Score:5, Insightful)
knee... (Score:0, Insightful)
meet jerk
And what does it solve exactly? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:I feel safer already. (Score:3, Insightful)
You've convinced me! We should probably take laws against murder, and assault, and theft off the books, because criminals will break the law. We should strike every law that could potentially be broken. What's the point of having laws at all. Just have everyone shoot it out with each other. Isn't that the NRA's dream?
Re:Seems perfectly reasonable (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Seems perfectly reasonable (Score:3, Insightful)
Yet. This little gem. The law also requires that when a mental health professional determines a gun owner is likely to do harm, the risk must be reported and the gun removed by law enforcement."
Is ripe for abuse, and I will enjoy seeing this bitch slapped down by the federal judiciary faster than you can say Zen Fascism. After all no bad law has ever been passed in the emotional furor after a tragedy.
Re:Seems perfectly reasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Seems perfectly reasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We need gas control! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Chicken or Egg? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:We need gas control! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Seems perfectly reasonable (Score:1, Insightful)
Sounds reasonable to me. There is no reason for anyone to have such a weapon, other than to cause mass mayhem.
Militia (Score:4, Insightful)
I do not understand how any of these reduced clip laws, or assault rifle bans, get passed when it is supposed to be legal to operate and join a militia and to have the ability to fight your own government if they turn tyrannical enough.
Re:We need gas control! (Score:3, Insightful)
If someone gets to that point and is even mildly resourceful, he will find a way to get what he wants, guns or no guns.
Exactly. Given the history of people blowing shit up in the US, and knife attacks that have left high numbers of bodies on the floor (in China, Japan, and yes, Europe), I'm going to be an ass.
The next time some horrible tragedy happens, I'm going to laugh my ass off.
Because this is so terribly American. Let's hand-wring, hand-wave, and ignore the real issue we need to deal with - because damn it, that's too hard. :(
The Chinese knife school massacre that happened at the same time Sandy Hook and have many people pointing to it like this -- yes there were many injured kids, but all of those are alive and back with their parents now. That makes all the difference in the world. Can you kill someone with a knife? Obviously! Is it quicker and easier and more distanced psychologically (less barrier for more people) to kill many people with a gun? Very much so.
Re:We need gas control! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Seems perfectly reasonable (Score:3, Insightful)
Nationalism? Nah, we're a police state that's a beacon to those Communist nations, bent on proving that we are God.
Re:We need gas control! (Score:5, Insightful)
Or with a bomb.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster [wikipedia.org]
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.
Re:Seems perfectly reasonable (Score:1, Insightful)
Hey, let's apply these same changes to your right to free speech, this should be easy.
You can only write up to 7 paragraphs in an article.
Any web form that allows you to put more than 10 paragraphs into an article has to be destroyed or sold out of state.
You have to have a background check before submitting your article to anyone but immediate family.
You can only buy your text editor from a licensed dealer.
Your okay with all of those restrictions, right? You should be because I can promise that you that speech and ideas have killed far more people than guns ever have.
no cool off (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, rampage killers typically create meticulous plans over time, they don't cool off, they build pressure.
Re:Ban Walmart (Score:4, Insightful)
You're right, anyone could build what they need to spread murder and mayhem.
Here's my counterargument: Why don't they then? I mean, we supposedly have a bunch of terrorists in our midst, we have drug dealers and pimps all trying to carve out territory, and we have just plain crazy people who would love to blow things up or dose everyone with mustard gas. Surely, some of them would be enterprising enough to build and use these weapons on a regular basis. But in fact, napalm attacks don't happen.
Some reasons I can think of:
- It's hard to make those kinds of things just on the spur of the moment. Someone who's trying to make a shrapnel bomb has to carefully plan ahead, think things through, etc. By contrast, many shootings are where somebody's snapped and not really capable of doing that kind of planning.
- There's significant risk of screwing up when building such weapons and injuring / killing yourself. Most mass murderers aren't the sort of people that have learned how to properly handle explosives or chemical munitions. Even bad guys who have reason to know what they're doing have problems - there are cases of terrorists having their bomb blow up as they're driving to the Israeli border, for example.
- These weapons are all less portable and concealable than,say, a 9mm.
- Building these weapons takes considerably more brains than firing a gun. I grant you, the brains required are something along the lines of "Google it and follow the instructions", but there are a lot of people who can't handle that but can handle "point gun at target, squeeze trigger".
Re:Seems perfectly reasonable (Score:4, Insightful)
Sensible changes
[citation needed]
and increased penalties for violence
Studies have proven time and again that increased penalties don't significantly reduce violence. This is what is wrong with your side in this argument. You are not interested in facts. You are only interested in feeling good. You are not interested in freedom, because you are insufficiently responsible for it. So are many gun owners, but is that something that just happened or a situation deliberately fostered by our government, who wants us dumb so that we can be more readily controlled? How will giving up your right to meaningful self-defense (7 rounds? really? in a state known for gang violence?) increase your safety when the police have been shown to commit crimes at the same rate as the general population?
None of these laws are going to reduce crime. I will bet you a dollar that gun crime will in fact increase in NY after these changes.
Re:Seems perfectly reasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:a month later ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Does it ban the gun used - No
Was the shooter diagnosed with mental illness - No
So after this legislation someone exactly the same as the shooter could still obtain the same gun in the same way, or buy it themselves so how exactly is this stopping this happening again?
Re:no cool off (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, of course the ones who actually go on the rampage are the ones who didn't cool off. If you think about going on a rampage, but then come to your senses you don't make the news.
Re:Ban Walmart (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.
Re:We need gas control! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:We need gas control! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Some good parts, but some rather absurd parts (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I feel safer already. (Score:2, Insightful)
The shooter was not diagnosed with any mental illness and had no criminal record and so could have legally purchased the gun had he wanted to ...
And now people with mental disorders are going to avoid getting help because they don't want to be reported to the police. Heck it is even worse than that. I've seen message boards where police officers refuse to get help with a mental illness because they are worried it would cost them their jobs.
Why are we so stupid with these laws? Instead of increasing access to treatment we instead increase the stigma of mental illness.
Re:We need gas control! (Score:4, 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.
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.
Re:We need gas control! (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.
Re:Guess what? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:I feel safer already. (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:We need gas control! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Seems perfectly reasonable (Score:4, Insightful)
They must be going after rifles because they know they'll have an easier time banning them than they will with handguns. It has nothing to do with whether or not it will help anyone or not.
Re:Some good parts, but some rather absurd parts (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We need gas control! (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re:We need gas control! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Why Is This On Slashdot? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:"likely to do harm"?? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:We need gas control! (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.
Re:I feel safer already. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Don't make him angry. (Score:4, Insightful)
You do realize that home invasions aren't always a single person. Groups of 2 or 3 are quite common. 7 rounds to deal with 3 intruders is getting pretty darned dicey.
Even trained law-enforcement when shooting typically have between a 17% and a 40% hit rate [nytimes.com] (that's not a hit to a vital area - just a hit at all), varying somewhat between what department you're looking at and what they're shooting at. Which means that even if you take the upper number of 40% a trained LEO is only likely to get 2.8 hits out of 7 shots.
Of course, the law-makers realize the foolishness of that and give the cops more bullets because they need them, but apparently the average citizen defending their home isn't worth as much.
Re:We need gas control! (Score:3, Insightful)
Gun manufacturers wouldn't see massive purchase spikes if anti-liberty folk didn't use the corpses of children as an excuse to do harm to people that had nothing to do with creating those corpses. This new law in New York just proves the panic buyers right.
If there were no anti-liberty politicians seeking to use tragedy for a people control agenda, then there would be no panic buys.
Re:We need gas control! (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to mention that even after all the guns are gone, the general level of violent crime remains higher in perpetuity, as has been shown in the UK, where hooligans roam the streets with near impunity.
Re:We need gun control (Score:3, Insightful)
> Doesn't matter to all the junior McVeighs here on Slashdot
It's a matter of imagination, not subversion. Nanny state dependents with no imagination can't understand that there are other ways to engage in mayhem. We live in a highly advanced technological society with potentially dangerous materials all around us. We also live in a free society where knowledge about how to use and abuse such materials is freely available.
An industrial arts class from the 80s could probably get around this latest attempt at legislating away technology.
Re:We need gas control! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:We need gas control! (Score:2, Insightful)
Yep I'm a coward.
You thought you were going to shame me or something?
I know better. "A man's gotta know his limitations". That means that when lions and bears and bobcats and coyotes come around, I prefer some firepower that's not from the French and Indian wars.
If you feel that you can't trust your friends and neighbors with modern "military" weapons then you're the one with a messed up society.
Banning the ammo box is just a manifestation of the desire to ban the ballot box.
Re:And what does it solve exactly? (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.
Re:Clearly, this will fix the problem. (Score:2, Insightful)
Since Australia enacted stricter gun control laws after a horrible mass shooting in 1996 there hasn't been one since:
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2012/1224/Could-the-US-learn-from-Australia-s-gun-control-laws [csmonitor.com]
So you tell us again this won't fix the problem. Go ahead.
Re:We need gas control! (Score:4, Insightful)
"Your "Second Amendment Rights" to bear a gun or a Blue-Rhino gas can have not been infringed.".
infringe
The usage in the constitution is the same as definition #2. To have our privacy "infringed" on does not necessarily mean that all privacy was taken away, it just means that some of it was taken away. So, likewise, any law that summarily prohibits all citizens from keeping and carrying (bearing) arms (weapons) of a certain "commonly used" type is a violation of the 2nd Amendment as that is "Infringement" by definition (the supreme court has previously allowed restrictions on "firearms not commonly used for self defense or militia purposes". Clearly, some of the firearms covered in this ban are very commonly used for self defense AND militia purposes, so I don't see how this law could be considered constitutional by any stretch of the imagination...especially the portion banning the possession of magazines over 7 rounds.
Re:Seems perfectly reasonable (Score:4, Insightful)
Adam broke into the safe while she was traveling. Then shot her with a .22 rifle when she returned, and finished his plans (a couple of days with her dead on the bed).
Safes keep children and lawyers from guns. There isn't a safe that will withstand a smart and determined attacker with time to get it open.
Re:We need gas control! (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.
Re:Seems perfectly reasonable (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:We need gas control! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Ban Walmart (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:We need gas control! (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.
Re:I feel safer already. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:We need gas control! (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Go to Youtube,
2. Search for "LA Riots Korean"
3. Observe the 2nd Amendment in action.
Re:We need gas control! (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.
Re:We need gas control! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:We need gas control! (Score:4, Insightful)
> Don't give people their 15 minutes
If everyone in the media would just agree that they'd never, ever mention the name or show an image of the perpetrator, that would go a long way toward solving the problem. I fully agree.
Absolutely. Most of these mutts have a death wish and want to go out as spectacularly as possible. They WANT the attention and notoriety. I say take it from them.
Re:We need gas control! (Score:4, Insightful)
The more irrational the arguments made by gun nuts, the easier it is to legislate against guns.
So please, keep it up.
Re:We need gun control (Score:2, Insightful)
It's a matter of imagination, not subversion. Nanny state dependents with no imagination can't understand that there are other ways to engage in mayhem.
Yeah, but penis extension worshipers just don't get the kick from propane.
How this stupidity is moderated as informative I can't imagine. I suppose all the female gun owners have penis envy too? The weak people who defend themselves with guns just wish they had bigger dicks?
Grow up.
I should grow up?
You do know that Bushmaster were advertising the AR15 with the slogan "consider your man card reissued"?
I'm just assuming they know their market.
Re:We need gas control! (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 [wikipedia.org]. 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. [lexjustis.com]
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.
Re:And what does it solve exactly? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We need gas control! (Score:2, Insightful)
It's the right that guarantees all the others. Rights belong only to those who can defend them. Sheeple who have disarmed themselves and use violence (the State) to force others to do the same have no rights.
A sentiment shared by Jared Lee Loughner, Lee Harvey Oswald, Anders Behring Breivik and Randy Weaver and David Koresh.
Wrong title (Score:4, Insightful)
Because nothing was wrong.
Re:We need gas control! (Score:4, Insightful)
That means that when lions and bears and bobcats and coyotes come around, I prefer some firepower that's not from the French and Indian wars.
You live in an area with lions, bears, bobcats and coyotes? Really? I mean, really? You don't just live somewhere urban and like guns?
Re:We need gas control! (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?