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

[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.

We don't get it because these organizations spend a ****-ton of money to get their guy elected.

we don't get it because people pay attention to the one hand that holds up the constitution and ignores the other hand that desecrates it.

We don't get it because those folks won't believe that hand exists, or they will minimize the problem than hand causes.

Cause and effect. the problem doesn't start with the guy who does the final act that seals the deal.

There will always be the corruptible.

Always. As sure as the sun will shine, there will be someone willing to accept money.

You have to stop the corruptors if you want to put a dent in the problem.

~BAng

[Mad Mike]

I was recently discussing potential assault rifle bans with a friend.

One common response by him and others against an AR ban is that civilian ARs are semi-automatic rifles and are fundamentally the same gun as most rifles, they simply "look scary."

My response, why doesn't the look and feel of a gun matter?

If ARs are the same as most riles, why are they produced and why do people buy them?

The reason - because they look and feel like powerful military weapons. The military weapons they are designed to resemble are created for one purpose - to kill enemy soldiers. They function differently, but that is the inspiration of the design.

Why doesn't that have a physiological effect?

I have shot a lot of guns in my life including various ARs. When holding an AR you feel powerful. You feel bad ass. You feel like a navy seal. That is the feeling the gun is supposed to give you. It is the entire reason it is designed that way and the marketing behind it.

I think a young person with mental problems holding an AR feels unstoppable. There is a reason mass killers have recently used them and I think it is physiological.

So, if exposure to violence through video games, TV, and movies is having a disturbing physiological effect on people - doesn't giving people a gun that looks and feels just like a powerful military weapon with the sole purpose of killing of humans also have an effect?

Note: While I support an AR ban, I think there are many more important gun control measures. I could live without an AR ban if other areas are addressed (clip size, background checks, liability insurance, registration, etc.)

Here's the thing... In 2010 the number of ARs sold in the US was estimated to be about 2.5 million. By now that number is probably about 3.5 to 4 million and rising. And that does not account for AKs or the many other military styled rifles. Out of 12,664 murder victims last year, 323 were killed with rifles. That is ALL rifles of any type and calibre including bolt action. (I haven't been able to find statistics for ARs only). In other words, the chance of being murdered with an "assault" rifle is pretty damn slim.

None of this is to say that we cant restrict the sale of them, perhaps as a new class of weapon below class 3 but more restricted than standard hunting rifles. (although tighter background checks for all weapons might make this un-necessary) They should probably also be banned from sale by multi-product stores such as Walmart and restricted to sales by certified gun dealers. As anyone with any experience in marketing knows, the more a product is seen by the general public, the more that product sells.

I try to imagine a workable set of rules for ammunition capacity but the best I can come up with is a ten round limit (this is the new average for "low" capacity mags) with 30 round mags classified as Class 3. But that would require a massive retrofit of hundreds of millions of magazines "in the wild" now. And such a move would be completely un-enforceable except retroactively should someone be caught with a banned capacity mag.

The bulk of changes and IMO the most effective still comes down to tighter background checks and tough laws for the storage and availability of weapons, along with greater availability of mental health services for those families who cannot afford them now.

I would also call on the NRA to provide better training and information as a way to avoid much stricter rules and regulations. From my experience taking an "approved" NRA handgun safety class, I believe they can do a lot more to stress safe storage, responsible use, and restriction of access by people who may have mental health issues within a gun owning household (a subject that is not currently covered at all).

But once again, with almost 4 million responsibly owned ARs and probably another million or two other "assault" weapons of various types out there, the guns themselves and the hundreds of millions of hi cap mags are NOT going away. So if you really care about getting something done and making our children and ourselves safer, lets focus on things that will have the most impact such as improved background checks, stricter laws requiring safe storage and availability of weapons to other members of household or thieves, and better availability of mental health services for those in need.

JMHO

[Jumbo]

I've mentioned before that there are topics where not only the "philosophical divisions" (being kind) are too deep, but even the eventually (or even initially) devolved tone becomes so demeaningly personalized (as opposed to generalized castigation) so often (and even "frothing") among participants , just like with abortion or some race/religion issues or "southern history/civil war/states rights" etc, that most discussion becomes too saturated with it and the steel-rod rigidity of original positions (on at least one side or another) that I mentioned, to result in much "progress."

Even excellent posters normally above such fray, like Redskins Diehard, when a matter of change involves an "emotionally charged" matter that hits certain chords, can start to get away from the argument content and into individual "personality matters''---But I know you have to stick up for your team...so well done and Don't worry...I don't expect an honest answer. See? Those are pretty lightweight examples, not really "bad" stuff. And I will digress here just for a minute: No, here RD is not being another "pull the guy's sword out of his scabbard and then throw myself on the sword and blame the guy who had the sword" deal, mod-wise. He's fine at this point and I know he will catch himself because he's shown it a hundred times. Though I wish Larry and whoever else would just take the bullet (I can't stop myself :evilg:) and apologize for being awful, however unintentionally, and making such a remark so we can move on in the thread conversation from the ongoing tangent that really doesn't have any good reason to go on this long.

Back to topic:

This is a matter where some sizable consensus will not be reached among the arguers.

To me this is one of those social themes (like gay marriage) where it will conclude with whoever can achieve via whatever methods used to get enough legislative control to pass whatever laws and enforce them. Then see if the resistant society adjusts enough to make it work to an acceptable degree. Like so many other things, there will always be a large element unhappy if things don't go their way. This is life. The pretense we can argue a vast majority into "friendly" or "intellectual" <we need a "snort" smiley> agreement on such matters is a fools errand. But the dialogue part of the process is still needed and it's how such contentious matters work to become new law.

Such dialogues also serve to potentially assist future generations in evolving their views, just as with slavery or women's suffrage. Perhaps a hundred years from now, similarly, gay marriage will have notably less social resistance than it still does currently. One premise on which I support some new restrictive laws (always doing a cost/reward analysis) even if of questionable strategic efficacy, is they may be part of a generational long cultural shift in attitudes that could benefit these issues.

While watching Spielberg's Lincoln, I thought of a popular theme of mine---that there was was a time where a sizable majority of "good and decent people" in this land really believed "women and blacks" lacked the mental capacity to deserve a vote and that interracial marriage was a biological, social, and religious abomination.

If you really think we have evolved biologically as a species in how fundamental brain operation works in a few hundred years.....

No. Some terribly hard-fought social changes, won by even the slimmest of margins, often take many years (or decades or more) for the bulk of society to "catch up" with them, and for the general culture to reflect significantly increased acceptance over resistance.

It may be that small things we do now, including many yielding precious little immediate positive change, stat a long-term shifting of general outlooks that lead to less "armed-camp awaiting appearance of a threat but I am well-prepared" or "I have a whole bunch of guns because it's fun and my having them doesn't hurt anyone because of how I do it" sorts of platform. I am far from "ban them all" and would take to the hills myself over that, and I am very familiar with the slippery slope arguments (isn't everyone by now?).

To my analysis, our cultural issues of violence (a very broad matter, of course) suffer much more from what I see as more an actual "gun fetishism" (and I have my piece of that) element, and even the less extreme resistance to change, than it does from an ability to deal with the various potential threats usually identified as reasons to hold the status quo.

[Larry]

We don't get it because these organizations spend a ****-ton of money to get their guy elected.

we don't get it because people pay attention to the one hand that holds up the constitution and ignores the other hand that desecrates it.

We don't get it because those folks won't believe that hand exists, or they will minimize the problem than hand causes.

Cause and effect. the problem doesn't start with the guy who does the final act that seals the deal.

There will always be the corruptible.

Always. As sure as the sun will shine, there will be someone willing to accept money.

You have to stop the corruptors if you want to put a dent in the problem.

~BAng

So (he asked, trying to look innocent), you're saying that the problem isn't that constitutional right to keep and bear arms, it's that constitutional right to lobby?

(That's one of the things covered in that "petition the government for the redress of grievances" thing.)

Me, I got a problem with corporations lobbying the government. But the NRA represents people. And kinda think that that's an important distinction.

[Redskins Diehard]

We don't get it because these organizations spend a ****-ton of money to get their guy elected.

we don't get it because people pay attention to the one hand that holds up the constitution and ignores the other hand that desecrates it.

We don't get it because those folks won't believe that hand exists, or they will minimize the problem than hand causes.

Cause and effect. the problem doesn't start with the guy who does the final act that seals the deal.

There will always be the corruptible.

Always. As sure as the sun will shine, there will be someone willing to accept money.

You have to stop the corruptors if you want to put a dent in the problem.

~BAng

Different outlook I suppose. I will leave it at this. If lobbyist influence on gun policy was the only area where this phenomena reared its ugly head then I would say lets take on the NRA. Until the venom is directed at the AARP, AIPAC, and the entire lobby industry then we are just trading which policies that aren't good for America are inserted into legislation. But that is a different discussion for a different thread.

[Jumbo]

Different outlook I suppose. I will leave it at this. If lobbyist influence on gun policy was the only area where this phenomena reared its ugly head then I would say lets take on the NRA. Until the venom is directed at the AARP, AIPAC, and the entire lobby industry then we are just trading which policies that aren't good for America are inserted into legislation. But that is a different discussion for a different thread.

I agree, but as with this topic itself, I am not one in general to accept an argument that implies "until I can cease all sin I will cease none."

[Burgold]

Different outlook I suppose. I will leave it at this. If lobbyist influence on gun policy was the only area where this phenomena reared its ugly head then I would say lets take on the NRA. Until the venom is directed at the AARP, AIPAC, and the entire lobby industry then we are just trading which policies that aren't good for America are inserted into legislation. But that is a different discussion for a different thread.

This is the first argument you've made that I really do have a problem with. Once you get past eight years old, saying "but he did it too!" should no longer wash as an excuse or a rationale not to act. I agree there are other bad actors that doesn't mean we get to be blind to the actions of this one.

[Redskins Diehard]

I agree, but as with this topic itself, I am not one in general to accept an argument that implies "until I can cease all sin I will cease none."

This is the first argument you've made that I really do have a problem with. Once you get past eight years old, saying "but he did it too!" should no longer wash as an excuse or a rationale not to act.

Well Burg, I am honored to have made it this long : )

I am not saying ignore this sin until we can mitigate all sin. I am saying that in my opinion the issue is not "NRA lobbying" it is spineless representatives. The other side of the same coin. And if you take care of THAT...then you take care of all corrupting lobbies.

[Jumbo]

I am not saying ignore this sin until we can mitigate all sin. I am saying that in my opinion the issue is not "NRA lobbying" it is spineless representatives. The other side of the same coin. And if you take care of THAT...then you take care of all corrupting lobbies.

Can't we slap the **** out of both when circumstance is appropriate?

Of course, there's no argument there, and I even allow for the idea that there can be well-funded and copious levels of "legitimate" lobbying. But, you know people. :pfft:

[twa]

spineless representatives. The other side of the same coin. And if you take care of THAT...then you take care of all corrupting lobbies.

exactly

but we do get the representation we deserve as a whole

[Bang]

Different outlook I suppose. I will leave it at this. If lobbyist influence on gun policy was the only area where this phenomena reared its ugly head then I would say lets take on the NRA. Until the venom is directed at the AARP, AIPAC, and the entire lobby industry then we are just trading which policies that aren't good for America are inserted into legislation. But that is a different discussion for a different thread.

This makes no sense.

as usual, unless everything can be done, nothing should be done.

Pointless.

~Bang

---------- Post added January-20th-2013 at 07:09 PM ----------

So (he asked, trying to look innocent), you're saying that the problem isn't that constitutional right to keep and bear arms, it's that constitutional right to lobby?

(That's one of the things covered in that "petition the government for the redress of grievances" thing.)

Me, I got a problem with corporations lobbying the government. But the NRA represents people. And kinda think that that's an important distinction.

So they can't be dead wrong in what they've done behind the scenes?

They can pretend to represent whoever they want.

Their actions are reprehensible.

~Bang

[Redskins Diehard]

This makes no sense.

as usual, unless everything can be done, nothing should be done.

Pointless.

~Bang

That is not at all what I said. Fix the problem. Not a singular symptom of the problem. Do away with the NRA completely and something else with sprout up in its place. Why? Because we haven't addressed the underlying issue.

[Larry]

So they can't be dead wrong in what they've done behind the scenes?

They can pretend to represent whoever they want.

Their actions are reprehensible.

~Bang

I don't read your post as saying that you're opposed to the NRA's objectives or policies. I read a complaint about the mere fact that they lobby.

(I see the same thing, only not quite as glaring, in Diehard's "don;t blame the NRA for lobbying in favor of hypocrisy, blame the politicians for doing that the hypocrites want them to do".)

The problem, here, isn't the fact that lobbying is happening. It's the things that the lobbying is lobbying for.

----------

I don't agree with the things that NAMBLA advocates. But I defend their right to advocate for it.

[Bang]

That is not at all what I said. Fix the problem. Not a singular symptom of the problem. Do away with the NRA completely and something else with sprout up in its place. Why? Because we haven't addressed the underlying issue.

Now, i never once said do away with the NRA.

I said see them for what they are, for what they've done, reverse their terrible legislation and uncuff the ATF.

It's their job to fix the problem, and the NRA has most definitely hindered their efforts.

if people see these scoundrels for who they all are, then we can change that. but so long as people are willing to look the other way they have no reason to ever be anything but corrupt.

~Bang

[Jumbo]

That is not at all what I said. Fix the problem. Not a singular symptom of the problem. Do away with the NRA completely and something else with sprout up in its place. Why? Because we haven't addressed the underlying issue.

Now I agreed, Big View wise, but given the degree you are holding to this position as a priority, you must be sure you're not on record here as speaking against other lobbying interests in the same manner some here on speaking against the NRA.

I mean, otherwise, what would that say--not about the fundamental truth of your point here, but about how it is integrated into the larger reality of these issues and the related forces in play, and your choice of when you deploy that point. :evilg:

[Bang]

I don't read your post as saying that you're opposed to the NRA's objectives or policies. .

I am opposed to them pushing for legislation that handcuffs law enforcement while screaming the answer is to enforce current laws.

their actions have shown what their objectives have been.

and among their objectives has been to hinder the ATF from being able to stop their proliferation agenda.

Remember as a kid how one kid would grab some other kid's wrists and use his own hands to punch him a bit.. asking him the whole time why he was slapping himself?

there's no difference.

~Bang

[Redskins Diehard]

Now, i never once said do away with the NRA.

I said see them for what they are, for what they've done, reverse their terrible legislation and uncuff the ATF.

It's their job to fix the problem, and the NRA has most definitely hindered their efforts.

if people see these scoundrels for who they all are, then we can change that. but so long as people are willing to look the other way they have no reason to ever be anything but corrupt.

~Bang

I didn't say you said do away with the NRA. I am saying I don't care if the NRA goes away or not.

Who are you talking about when you say "scoundrels"?

---------- Post added January-20th-2013 at 02:37 PM ----------

Now I agreed, Big View wise, but given the degree you are holding to this position as a priority, you must be sure you're not on record here as speaking against other lobbying interests in the same manner some here on speaking against the NRA.

I mean, otherwise, what would that say--not about the fundamental truth of your point here, but about how it is integrated into the larger reality of these issues and the related forces in play, and your choice of when you deploy that point. :evilg:

I don't have a copy of my "record" of posting here. But I can say that I have lobbied against the influence of lobby's before. Does that make me a hypocrite? Or self defeating? I think the most recent example here on the board was the appointment of Chuck Hagel as SecDef. Admittedly I tread lightly on the whole "Israeli lobby" because well that can get out of hand really quickly(not everyone demonstrates the ability to step up to the line...and then back off like I do). But I didn't specifically cite the AARP and AIPAC earlier because I was going in alphabetical order

[Bang]

Who are you talking about when you say "scoundrels"?

People who actively subvert our law enforcement fall under that, don't they?

~Bang

[Jumbo]

I don't have a copy of my "record" of posting here. But I can say that I have lobbied against the influence of lobby's before. Does that make me a hypocrite? Or self defeating? I think the most recent example here on the board was the appointment of Chuck Hagel as SecDef. Admittedly I tread lightly on the whole "Israeli lobby" because well that can get out of hand really quickly(not everyone demonstrates the ability to step up to the line...and then back off like I do). But I didn't specifically cite the AARP and AIPAC earlier because I was going in alphabetical order

Every member does, amigo it's one of the options on the left side of anyone's profile page ("find all posts") or when you click on a member's name you get the drop down and it's an option there, too.

You can also use the google search option in the rules and just enter the topic and the members name if you want to get thorough on a specific matter and don't want to wade through a ton o stuff. That's how many folks here hold each other accountable. I don't use it much because I have a regularly measured, and phenomenal, memory. :pfft: Actually, more because I don't care that much on such things.

I'm good with making an observation or asking a question in such instances just to examine perspectives and have the best informed discussion (I never fully recovered from opium-induced illusions of paradise). And there's no one posting here that doesn't have varying levels of hypocrisy (occurring at various levels of self-awareness) or self-defeating behaviors (and I don't think that applies in this instance). It's a fundamental human trait. I find the challenge is to try to limit/manage it. **** trying to eliminate it. :pfft:

(soon there will be football )

[AsburySkinsFan]

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.

No I do not find it funny, not in the slightest. To insinuate otherwise is colossally moronic.

What I also don't find funny is the lie we keep being told that more guns makes us more safe.

None of it is funny, but you still want to distract from the larger issue because you have your panties in a wad over a comment on a message board which you are now blowing out of proportion and now applying to everyone who disagrees with you.

[Popeman38]

No I do not find it funny, not in the slightest. To insinuate otherwise is colossally moronic.

What I also don't find funny is the lie we keep being told that more guns makes us more safe.

None of it is funny, but you still want to distract from the larger issue because you have your panties in a wad over a comment on a message board which you are now blowing out of proportion and now applying to everyone who disagrees with you.

And you keep ignoring the fact that crime, including those committed with firearms, continues to go down.

[AsburySkinsFan]

And you keep ignoring the fact that crime, including those committed with firearms, continues to go down.

Minimally.

If I quoted to you the fact that abortion numbers continue to go down I am guessing you'd respond similarly.

1052 gun related deaths just since Sandy Hook.....and some how we're supposed to think this is acceptable.

[Bang]

And you keep ignoring the fact that crime, including those committed with firearms, continues to go down.

Entirely true. This is why i feel the answer to the relatively small but socially huge problem of psychos getting guns or criminals having guns is in tightening the registration process and being able to police existing laws.

~Bang

[Popeman38]

Minimally.

If I quoted to you the fact that abortion numbers continue to go down I am guessing you'd respond similarly.

1052 gun related deaths just since Sandy Hook.....and some how we're supposed to think this is acceptable.

Where do you get that number?

[AsburySkinsFan]

Where do you get that number?

1068 now.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html

this will get dismissed via an ad hominem regarding the source.