Yahoo/AP: NY seals 1st state gun laws since Newtown massacre

[Redskins Diehard]

---------- Post added January-19th-2013 at 05:33 PM ----------

Amigo, aren't you sort of "reaching" here to make it seem like a comment of ill grace and of a devaluing nature to the poster, when everyone here knows Larry wouldn't find the shooting of a person "funny" under any normal circumstance and was obviously implying "irony" (which you could honestly debate).

( I wrote that before I see Larry mentioning irony in a reply, but will let it stand)

I don't think so. I think it is a jerk thing to say. DEA Agent is irony. Negligent discharge of a shotgun? I don't find it funny at all. Could some ironic nature of the person hit imply irony? Perhaps.

[Larry]

Irony is the guy that posted an article without digging all the way to cnn.com remarking about a rush to do anything. I would have mentioned retired police officer if it was in the article then. Or now for that matter. It stills says deputy sheriff with no mention of status. But no, still wouldnt find it funny. Its not funny when someone is shot by someone else. The DEA agent that shoots himself while lecturing students about how professional he is? Maybe that is funny. But when there is a negligent discharge of a shotgun...when nobody has any muzzle control at all...no, I dont find that funny.

Funny. When I comment on an article (and provide a link to it), I'm attacked (twice, now), far failing to know something that wasn't in the article I red (and posted).

But, when I point out something that wasn't in the article you posted? (Well, referenced, without providing a link to). Then the fact that that fact wasn't in the article you read, seems to be a defense.

However, thank you for getting around to actually stating your opinion that it is NEVER funny when someone is accidentally shot.

I disagree with your opinion. But I can certainly see where it's coming from. And respect it.

[Jumbo]

I don't think so. I think it is a jerk thing to say. DEA Agent is irony. Negligent discharge of a shotgun? I don't find it funny at all. Could some ironic nature of the person hit imply irony? Perhaps.

Good enough. I usually stick to my guns, too.

Oops, I did it again. :pfft:

Not funny, I know. :mad:

[alexey]

...

Leahy has voted to allow guns in national parks and on Amtrak trains, but he also supported the 1994 assault weapons ban and prohibitions on "cop killer" bullets. Many of the measures on the table now, he said, are a matter of common sense.

"About the only gun law we have in Vermont is during deer season," he said. "If you have a semi-automatic, you can't have more than six rounds in it. Are we really as a nation saying we are going to be more protective of the deer than we are of our children? I think not."

...

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/01/19/169713517/a-gun-owner-from-the-left-sen-leahy-leads-the-debate

[AsburySkinsFan]

Your comment and agenda, the intent behind it is ridiculous. NRA is all crooked and makes politicians their puppets, right? Let's just mock "pro-gun" people every chance in a shooting.

Banning guns your answer? Or do you have one? Other than mock "pro-gun" people?

Oh I see, so the content of what I said you refuse to address, instead what you don't like is my "agenda", which you have wrong by the way. I didn't mock anyone I simply stated how these events would be rationalized by the pro-gun groups and that you would seize upon Larry's comments in order to ignore the real issues......which you've done.

---------- Post added January-19th-2013 at 10:56 PM ----------

Funny. When I comment on an article (and provide a link to it), I'm attacked (twice, now), far failing to know something that wasn't in the article I red (and posted).

It's just a distraction....see you posted the article almost a page ago but in attacking you they have managed to keep the discussion away from the real issues at hand.

[Redskins Diehard]

---------- Post added January-19th-2013 at 10:56 PM ----------

It's just a distraction....see you posted the article almost a page ago but in attacking you they have managed to keep the discussion away from the real issues at hand.

So the point that there were injuries at a gun shows is relevant...but the fact that isn't funny isn't?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/19/us/north-carolina-gun-show-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

There is the article for those that might have a difficult time tracking down the lead story on CNN.com.

[Bang]

Your comment and agenda, the intent behind it is ridiculous. NRA is all crooked and makes politicians their puppets, right?

Facts are facts.

the NRA is a crooked organization who uses corrupt politicians to hide legislation in unrelated bills designed to hamstring law enforcement's ability to track gun dealer activities for the express purpose of making it as easy as possible for money for gun manufacturers and sellers to make money.

Through their use of corrupt politicians and dirty-pool underhanded political tactics they have caused us to not be able to police the current laws, which they scream at the top of their lungs that they want us to do.

They can prop all sorts of safety classes and kids programs to make it all look nice, but what they do is subvert our system.

So it's up to you.

You can continue to be a dupe of an organization like this, or you can see them for what they are and recognize them as duplicitous liars using their influence to pull the wool over the eyes of their supporters while they rig the system.

Knowing what they do does not have to affect anyone's stance on guns. You can be pro gun and know the NRA is off the deep end.

It's just a matter of getting a group who's ****ting in the water OUT of the pool.

~Bang

[AsburySkinsFan]

So the point that there were injuries at a gun shows is relevant...but the fact that isn't funny isn't?

Cnsidering this thread is about gun laws and not Larry's comments yeah, they aren't relevant to the discussion, your objection is only serving to distract from the actual issue which as has been pointed out by these unfortunate events is that more people with more guns does not result in greater safety and responsibility. But you keep pointing to Larry's off handed comment as the full issue instead of addressing the real point. I'll just sit back and allow you to be the living embodiment of my point.

---------- Post added January-20th-2013 at 10:24 AM ----------

Your comment and agenda, the intent behind it is ridiculous. NRA is all crooked and makes politicians their puppets, right?

I see right through your little trick, you're backed into a corner and have to admit that a lot of what the NRA does is crooked, so you insert the word "all" in order to justify the corruption because the Association isn't 100% absolutely entirely crooked, because if you can find a single example of non-crooked behavior then the entire organization can be justified....all while you turn a blind eye to their actual corruption.

BTW, I didn't mock any gun people, I simply pointed out how these sad incidents would be rationalized by pro-gun people.

FYI, I am a gun owner, and gave a 20 gauge to my son for his 10th birthday. So you can take your ill-informed rage against whatever agenda you think I have and stow it.

[Redskins Diehard]

Cnsidering this thread is about gun laws and not Larry's comments yeah, they aren't relevant to the discussion, your objection is only serving to distract from the actual issue which as has been pointed out by these unfortunate events is that more people with more guns does not result in greater safety and responsibility. But you keep pointing to Larry's off handed comment as the full issue instead of addressing the real point. I'll just sit back and allow you to be the living embodiment of my point.

Since you have quoted me before...in this very thread...you know that I have been involved in the "full issue" from the very beginning. My objection is that gun violence...especially negligent discharge...is never funny. There were not more serious injuries because of luck. That is it. But I know you have to stick up for your team...so well done. Let me ask you...do you find it "funny" that 5 people were shot in 3 separate incidents simply because it happened in conjunction with a gun show? Don't worry...I don't expect an honest answer.

[Bang]

Since you have quoted me before...in this very thread...you know that I have been involved in the "full issue" from the very beginning. My objection is that gun violence...especially negligent discharge...is never funny. There were not more serious injuries because of luck. That is it. But I know you have to stick up for your team...so well done. Let me ask you...do you find it "funny" that 5 people were shot in 3 separate incidents simply because it happened in conjunction with a gun show? Don't worry...I don't expect an honest answer.

"ironic" is a better word. It certainly is that.

~Bang

[Burgold]

My concern is that gun violence or at least the mass shooting component of this is getting worse. It used to be these incidents would happen and it would be years before another one. Now, it's weeks or months. Aurora, the Sikh, Sandyhook have all come in pretty rapid succession and there are few factors to tie them together other than guns. These aren't the acts of one deranged serial killer or even a cult sent out to sow destruction... the only thing these things have in common is guns.

Since at least Virginia Tech, our answer to these events has been to do nothing and hope for better. Frankly, the country has either believed or been cowed by the gun lobby and those who believe in their own gun rights. Well, the trendline seems to show these events happening more often and gun laws have been loosened as second ammendment advocates have won a number of court cases. So, if doing nothing isn't getting the job done... maybe we should try doing something.

[Redskins Diehard]

"ironic" is a better word. It certainly is that.

~Bang

No, not even that. Look up "DEA agent shoots himself". That is "ironic". Someone that claims "guns aren't dangerous"...that is ironic. Innocent bystander? No, not ironic. Or funny. It does speak to the seriousness of the issue for sure. Guns are dangerous. Whether they are being used maliciously or not.

---------- Post added January-20th-2013 at 11:30 AM ----------

My concern is that gun violence or at least the mass shooting component of this is getting worse. It used to be these incidents would happen and it would be years before another one. Now, it's weeks or months. Aurora, the Sikh, Sandyhook have all come in pretty rapid succession and there are few factors to tie them together other than guns. These aren't the acts of one deranged serial killer or even a cult sent out to sow destruction... the only thing these things have in common is guns.

Since at least Virginia Tech, our answer to these events has been to do nothing and hope for better. Frankly, the country has either believed or been cowed by the gun lobby and those who believe in their own gun rights. Well, the trendline seems to show these events happening more often and gun laws have been loosened as second ammendment advocates have won a number of court cases. So, if doing nothing isn't getting the job done... maybe we should try doing something.

Oh, it isn't just the gun lobby that is shaping the discussion. The fact that everyone is so hung up on "assault weapons" shows that there is another force at play here also. You did leave out Ft. Hood and Tucson.

[Burgold]

That's true, Diehard.

What I wish is that the gun lobby and those who believe in gun rights would be a more constructive agent in trying to solve the problem. From my vantage, they attempt to obstruct any change or solution. That's irresponsible. It'd be better if they said... These are the problems are clients have noticed in their shops, in their homes, in their communities... maybe if we addressed this it would be better.

To say, bah "assault weapons" is a distraction is fine, but tell me then what the real problem is.

[Bang]

Fair points, RD. i don't disagree.

~Bang

[Redskins Diehard]

That's true, Diehard.

What I wish is that the gun lobby and those who believe in gun rights would be a more constructive agent in trying to solve the problem. From my vantage, they attempt to obstruct any change or solution. That's irresponsible. It'd be better if they said... These are the problems are clients have noticed in their shops, in their homes, in their communities... maybe if we addressed this it would be better.

To say, bah "assault weapons" is a distraction is fine, but tell me then what the real problem is.

I agree that NRA isn't "helping" the situation. I don't know the extent to which they are "hurting" the situation. I said from the beginning that from a purely economic standpoint they should advocating safety. One of my old friends(who definitely falls on the "ban weapons...all of them" side") reminded me that the "hunter safety course" that we took 25+ years ago in middle school was sponsored by the NRA. Why aren't they proposing rules that would require some degree of certification...that they could then provide? What the incidents at the gun shows demonstrate to me...among all the various aspects of this issue...is that people that purchase weapons frequently don't know how to handle them in a safe manner. Not because they are crazy. Not because they are "assault weapons". Not because of magazine capacity. And this isn't something that just happens in the general population...negligent discharges happened in both Afghanistan and Iraq more than once. Not properly clearing weapons. Not ensuring muzzle is pointed in a safe direction. Simple stuff. As far as I know none of the proposals talk anything about a certification process. I know it exists for concealed carry here in Virginia.

For gun shows....either require proof of an advanced background check. Or have someone sitting there with the capability to do it on the spot. Someone...in one of these threads...listed out some things that should disqualify someone from a purchase. As far as I know domestic violence charges does automatically. The Lautenberg ammendment.(It even applies to soldiers being deployed. Not allowed to carry a gun. Period) It should also be the case for purchases in gun stores etc. I don't know how effective "wait times" actually are. I don't know that I would have much issue with being certified by a mental health professional ahead of time. I don't know how effective that would be. So, if you want to purchase a gun I think it is reasonable to produce proof of training, mental health, and a clean background check. Does it solve all of the "mass shooting" incidents? No. Does it prevent some of them? Maybe. I think it goes much farther then banning flash suppressors and bayonet lugs.

edit: But I think the onus is not just on the NRA to shape the discussion in this manner. It is on everyone that wants to weigh in on it.

[Burgold]

edit: But I think the onus is not just on the NRA to shape the discussion in this manner. It is on everyone that wants to weigh in on it.

Good post and I agree. Safety courses, certification, registration... none of these will eliminate tragedy, but the point is to make it a little tougher. If humans were smart enough to eliminate tragedy we wouldn't be going on our six millionth year and still have to contend with murder in the first place.

[Bang]

I agree that NRA isn't "helping" the situation. I don't know the extent to which they are "hurting" the situation. .

They have written legislation and through cronie congressmen, inserted it into bills that are totally unrelated and in effect have taken the ATF out of the picture.

ATF cannot police the criminals who sell so many guns to criminals.

ATF cannot track weapon inventories. They can't even have a leader thanks to laws the NRA has had inserted.

One one hand the NRA screams to police existing laws, and in the other are giant shears they created to cut the balls off the very organization who is specifically created to police said laws.

they exploit and hurt the cause tremendously.

~Bang

[Redskins Diehard]

They have written legislation and through cronie congressmen, inserted it into bills that are totally unrelated and in effect have taken the ATF out of the picture.

ATF cannot police the criminals who sell so many guns to criminals.

ATF cannot track weapon inventories. They can't even have a leader thanks to laws the NRA has had inserted.

One one hand the NRA screams to police existing laws, and in the other are giant shears they created to cut the balls off the very organization who is specifically created to police said laws.

they exploit and hurt the cause tremendously.

~Bang

You blame the NRA...I blame the majority of both houses of Congress and the President that signs those laws. But either in this thread or the other one that horse was already beaten to death. One of the executive orders(which I haven't seen much discussion of) was "appoint a director for ATF"....sounds like when I wrote down "buy coffee" and stuck it to the fridge.

[Bang]

You blame the NRA...I blame the majority of both houses of Congress and the President that signs those laws. But either in this thread or the other one that horse was already beaten to death. One of the executive orders(which I haven't seen much discussion of) was "appoint a director for ATF"....sounds like when I wrote down "buy coffee" and stuck it to the fridge.

A horse can only be led to water. you said you didn'tknow how much they helped or harmed.

I showed you how they harm it.. they have indeed neutered the police. There's links throughout the various threads over the last week or so.

and yet they still have people believing they want to 'police existing laws'.

It's a sucker play

blame the congressmen all you want.. they're complicit. But at least recognize who is behind the politician corrupting him.

~Bang

[Redskins Diehard]

A horse can only be led to water. you said you didn'tknow how much they helped or harmed.

I showed you how they harm it.. they have indeed neutered the police. There's links throughout the various threads over the last week or so.

and yet they still have people believing they want to 'police existing laws'.

It's a sucker play

blame the congressmen all you want.. they're complicit. But at least recognize who is behind the politician corrupting him.

~Bang

If you are going to "quote" what I say please do so correctly. I did not say I did not know how much they are hurting or helping. I said they aren't helping and I am not sure the extent to which they are hurting.

There is a long line of corrupting influences lined up behind every congressman out there. There is an entire industry of lobbyist built on that very concept. At some point I stop blaming the person trying to influence and hold the person that is influenced accountable. Either way that isn't the point.

[Bang]

If you are going to "quote" what I say please do so correctly. I did not say I did not know how much they are hurting or helping. I said they aren't helping and I am not sure the extent to which they are hurting.

There is a long line of corrupting influences lined up behind every congressman out there. There is an entire industry of lobbyist built on that very concept. At some point I stop blaming the person trying to influence and hold the person that is influenced accountable. Either way that isn't the point.

OK, well, regardless of how you want to slice it, what they do is subvert this country.

You can choose to see it or not..

Washington at work, as they like to say.. the NRA spends a ton of money to get their boy elected, and their boy does what they told him to do in return, and the ATF is neutered. Gun dealers are set free from any oversight. Illegal guns are everywhere, the NRA says "criminals will always get guns" and then they enable all the criminals to get guns from criminal dealers who have NO fear of any police ever catching on, because thanks to the new laws the NRA sponsored, the ATF can't require him to report it.

the NRA says "police existing laws" and then they actively subvert that by having their pocketed politicians slide legislation in that prevents them from doing it.

We hate that, don't we?

unless it's a lobby we agree with, I guess..

By your logic, drug dealers in front of schools should be A-OK.. . because it's the kid's fault they become junkies.

The guy behind it isn't at fault.. at some point.

I guess that point is when a favored organization is shown to be dirty.

~Bang

[Popeman38]

Gun ownership is increasing. More people own guns than ever before in our history. Yet crime involving guns is on a continuing downward slope, as are murders overall and with firearms. Homicide involving firearm (including justifiable) is down 15% over the last 4 years according to the FBI. Without massive reform of gun control and despite the expiration of the AWB. When the debate over the expiration of said ban was being held, it was stated that violent crime and murder would increase. That hasn't happened. Why do we all of a sudden need to massively overhaul laws that regulate firearms when all statistics indicate crimes related to firearms are on a steady decline?

[Redskins Diehard]

By your logic, drug dealers in front of schools should be A-OK.. . because it's the kid's fault they become junkies.

The guy behind it isn't at fault.. at some point.

I guess that point is when a favored organization is shown to be dirty.

~Bang

Not even close. We should expect better decision making out of our elected officials. We should expect people that aren't easily swayed. We don't get it. But we should not give them a pass because there is a lobbyist sitting in their office.

[Larry]

That's true, Diehard.

What I wish is that the gun lobby and those who believe in gun rights would be a more constructive agent in trying to solve the problem. From my vantage, they attempt to obstruct any change or solution. That's irresponsible. It'd be better if they said... These are the problems are clients have noticed in their shops, in their homes, in their communities... maybe if we addressed this it would be better.

To say, bah "assault weapons" is a distraction is fine, but tell me then what the real problem is.

But, Burg, they did say where they would rather us look.

Video games (which the NRA themselves have produced) and enforcement of existing laws (which the NRA actively obstructs).

[DjTj]

Gun ownership is increasing. More people own guns than ever before in our history. Yet crime involving guns is on a continuing downward slope, as are murders overall and with firearms. Homicide involving firearm (including justifiable) is down 15% over the last 4 years according to the FBI. Without massive reform of gun control and despite the expiration of the AWB. When the debate over the expiration of said ban was being held, it was stated that violent crime and murder would increase. That hasn't happened. Why do we all of a sudden need to massively overhaul laws that regulate firearms when all statistics indicate crimes related to firearms are on a steady decline?

Because the nature of gun crime has changed. We seem to have done a reasonable job at decreasing shooting deaths related to other crimes, like robberies or gang violence that often resulted in mass killing in the 80s and 90s, but we are now seeing more school shootings or other public shootings by mentally disturbed individuals.

The assault weapons ban of 1994 was largely targeted at the problem of drugs and gangs that dominated the headlines of the 1980s. The current debate about guns focuses on school shootings that now dominate our headlines. If the threat has changed, should our laws also change?