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

[Mad Mike]

I may be thinking of another thread, but I was under the impression that somebody else (Diehard?) was able to find links to every one of the deaths cited in ASF's statistics. (And to use those links to argue why they shouldn't be counted.)

Suggestion:

How about, instead of loudly and repeatedly demanding that the entire number must be ignored, regardless of how well it tracks with previous numbers, or anything else, merely because the word "twitter" is mentioned, somewhere; how about giving some arguments why you think that, even if correct, you disagree with the relevance of the number?

For example: How about arguing that maybe the statistics on how many people intentionally kill themselves with guns, might not be a really compelling argument for why we need more gun control?

That's an argument that I can see some logic behind.

Although, I can see some valid logic behind arguing why some of the other numbers that the "pro gun" people would like to throw out, maybe shouldn't be so quickly dismissed.

For example, the number of cases in which a police officer shoots somebody.

Yeah, those cases aren't counted as

murders

.

OTOH, I would certainly

hope

that most of those cases, the reason why the cop shot that person, was because the criminal had a gun. (Despite numerous anecdotal evidence to the contrary, I still tend to assume that police only shoot

armed

people.)

I think it is perfectly reasonable to argue that maybe, if there were fewer gun-packing criminals, then maybe there'd be fewer "cop kills criminal" statistics.

In all honesty, I'm a little dumbfounded.

The person who noted that the site ASF linked allows you to find out the details of every death was ME. And arguing that suicide, self defense, and a criminals death by a cop shooting him are not good examples of the need for gun control was EXACTLY the point I was trying to make and why I said those statistics are not reliable because they make no distinction.

Yesterday you attacked me for it. Today now that *you* thought of it it's a reasonable argument? Wow. :doh:

And BTW... What if a cop is attacked with a knife or some other object? Or the suspect attempts to run them over with a car to get away? Or is in the process of attacking someone else who could be killed? Shouldn't those situations be accounted for rather than assuming every justifiable police shooting is because the bad guy had a gun?

And before you go all postal on me again, remember, I'm not arguing against better gun control. if you go back a few pages you will find I'm arguing for smart gun control that takes into account the reality that there are nearly 5 million military style weapons privately owned in the united states and there is no way to account for all of the high capacity magazines.

[Larry]

In all honesty, I'm a little dumbfounded.

The person who noted that the site ASF linked allows you to find out the details of every death was ME. And arguing that suicide, self defense, and a criminals death by a cop shooting him are not good examples of the need for gun control was EXACTLY the point I was trying to make and why I said those statistics are not reliable because they make no distinction.

Yesterday you attacked me for it. Today now that *you* thought of it it's a reasonable argument? Wow. :doh:

And yesterday, and today, I'm pointing out that claiming "that site isn't reliable" (when you've even documented the fact that it is) isn't the way to go. That pointing out that maybe parts of it aren't relevant is.

And BTW... What if a cop is attacked with a knife or some other object? Or the suspect attempts to run them over with a car to get away? Or is in the process of attacking someone else who could be killed? Shouldn't those situations be accounted for rather than assuming every justifiable police shooting is because the bad guy had a gun?

Wow. You really demolished my claim that every single case where a cop shoots somebody, was because that person had a gun.

Oh, wait. I didn't say that.

Do you think it's at least a reasonable argument that a great many of those cases, are? Would you say that the majority of them are?

And before you go all postal on me again . . .

Suggest looking up the definitions of "postal", and "again".

. . . remember, I'm not arguing against better gun control. if you go back a few pages you will find I'm arguing for smart gun control that takes into account the reality that there are nearly 5 million military style weapons privately owned in the united states and there is no way to account for all of the high capacity magazines.

There are millions of illegals in this country, too.

Guess that means you'd be opposed to securing the border, trying to stop more of them, maybe trying to figure out some way of at least reducing them?

I've always loved the folks who argue that because millions of something bad, exists, therefore we cannot possibly consider even attempting to prevent more of it.

[Mad Mike]

There are millions of illegals in this country, too.

Guess that means you'd be opposed to securing the border, trying to stop more of them, maybe trying to figure out some way of at least reducing them?

I've always loved the folks who argue that because millions of something bad, exists, therefore we cannot possibly consider even attempting to prevent more of it.

Wow Larry You seem to have SERIOUS trouble reading. That or you don't care to understand my actual position and are simply obsessed with attacking every single post I make regardless of content.

But for review, here it is:

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

I'll even go so far as to say I would support a voluntary buy back program. Noting of course that a forced buy-back of 5 million "assault" type weapons at $1200-$3000 would be prohibitively expensive and forced seizure would probably result in open revolt and civil war.

Your sad and ridiculous attempt to paint my opinion as being against any form of gun control is another pathetic LIE.

[Jumbo]

Mad Mike and Larry, I'd say "may I suggest you move on" but that seems phoney to me.

So, move on.

[IHOPSkins]

While liberals were falling over themselves to make Obama's "Gun Clingers" into criminals...they should have paid more attention to their OWN responsibilities .....

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo's office is working on amendments to clarify the newly passed gun-control law, following complaints that it did not explicitly exempt police officers from a ban on high-capacity magazines.

The state law bans magazines over seven rounds -- police officers typically use magazines that hold twice as many bullets.

Critics of the law claimed the alleged oversight was a product of the haste with which the package was passed ....

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/18/ny-guv-looks-to-clarify-gun-law-after-concern-about-exemption-for-police/

For those that cant handle Fox.......

As the statute is currently written, it does not exempt law enforcement officers.......

......A spokesman for the governor's office called Eyewitness News to say, "We are still working out some details of the law and the exemption will be included, currently no police officer is in violation."

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local/new_york&id=8958116

I love the "We are working on an exemption BUT no officer is in violation" thing.....Talk about Double Speak

And we are supposed to trust these Politicians with our lives?

[mistertim]

Do you have any idea how often this happens with legislation? On the state and federal level. Things get missed in bills, or a loophole is missed, or an exemption is missed, or vague/easily misunderstood wording is found and pointed out. The issues are found and resolved as much as possible, either before the bill is passed or after as an amendment. To me this is a non-issue. I seriously doubt that New York is going to suddenly start arresting cops because of this exemption that they missed.

[IHOPSkins]

Do you have any idea how often this happens with legislation? ..... I seriously doubt that New York is going to suddenly start arresting cops

Nope, do you?......But I do agree with you that this was a "Miss"

Is there a Good excuse for a Bad law?

Negotiations were made behind closed doors in the middle of the night, debate was rushed, public input was ignored and the votes were taken.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/01/18/new-york-passed-a-gun-control-law-so-they-could-see-what-was-in-it-n1492167

We should expect more from a law that restricts a constitutional right...and then again since enforcement of laws is now optional....does it matter?

[IHOPSkins]

Opponents take N.Y. gun law to court

.......The notice said the law, called the NY-SAFE Act, is intended "to harass, harm, impede, interfere with, disrupt, interrupt, and/or destroy the present and future business and commercial activities" of gun owners and businesses........

Some state law enforcement officials have railed against law, saying it will be difficult to enforce and they were leery of going after law-abiding gun owners......

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/29/opponents-take-ny-gun-law-to-court/1875599/

Lets hope that the LEERYness continues

[Larry]

Seemed like it kind of went with this thread.

Yahoo/AP: Colo. House passes gun-control measures

DENVER (AP) — Limits on the size of ammunition magazines and universal background checks passed the Colorado House on Monday, during a second day of emotional debates that has drawn attention from the White House as lawmakers try to address recent mass shootings.

The bills were among four that the Democratic-controlled House passed amid strong resistance from Republicans, who were joined by a few Democrats to make some of the votes close.

The proposed ammunition restrictions limit magazines to 15 rounds for firearms, and eight for shotguns. Three Democrats joined all Republicans voting no on the bill, but the proposal passed 34-31.

Eight rounds in a magazine, for shotguns? I thought the rule was three, already?

Lots of more details at the link.

[Larry]

Yahoo: State, local politicians attempt to preempt federal gun laws

They say the best defense is a good offense.

As the president and some congressional Democrats urge federal action on gun violence, lawmakers in at least five states have introduced legislation to preemptively outlaw any federal bans on high-capacity magazines or certain semi-automatic rifles. Some of the proposed laws even go a step further, making it a state crime for any government official to enforce these hypothetical federal gun laws.

Bills introduced in Texas, Wyoming, Tennessee, Alabama and Missouri over the past month would declare void any federal laws banning high-capacity magazines or certain weapons. The Texas bill, for instance, introduced by Rep. John Otto of Dayton, says any federal attempts to tax, limit the magazine size of, or ban any weapon "infringes upon Texans' right to bear arms" and is thus "invalid" in the state. Any government employee who enforces such laws is committing a misdemeanor crime, the bill says.

These state laws would most likely be unenforceable, as federal gun control laws would preempt state laws. It would be up to the courts to decide whether gun control bills infringed on constitutional rights.

At least one state lawmaker is hoping to shut down debate over gun control laws altogether. Missouri State Rep. Mike Leara introduced a bill to make it a criminal act (Class D felony) for any state lawmaker to introduce gun control legislation. Rep. Stacey Newman, a Democrat who has sponsored legislation to expand background checks, wrote on Twitter about the bill: “Counting on you all visiting me in prison re my background ck bill.”

(Not much) more at the link.

1) Well, it's nice to see the GOP using their usual fear to motivate their base.

2) That said, though, I look at various states deciding to "opt out" of enforcing federal drug laws, and I wonder how many people's opinions on the legality or constitutionality of these two laws change, depending on which laws they're deciding not to enforce

[IHOPSkins]

Gaining Momentum: Now 44 Gun Companies Have Stopped Selling to Law Enforcement In Anti-2nd Amendment States

The list of companies that have stopped selling firearms and ammunition to law enforcement agencies in states that are restricting the Second Amendment has more than doubled since Wednesday and is more than five times larger than just one week ago. There are 44 companies on our list, with more being added as we receive notification.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/23/gaining-momentum-now-42-gun-companies-have-stopped-selling-to-law-enforcement-in-anti-2nd-amendment-states/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=Share+Buttons

Some Company statements below;

”Due to legal, ethical and moral concerns, Citizen Arms offers only those custom firearms that are legal for all lawful citizens of a given state to possess, regardless of law enforcement status. LE personnel living in states where citizens must have restrictive features will only receive like product support from Citizen Arms. We’re very appreciative of the sacrifices made by the law enforcement community but we’re even more appreciative of the right guaranteed to all law-abiding US citizens by the Second Amendment to the US Constitution: A well regulated militia, necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

Barrett opposes those who are illegally disarming the American public from their efficient arms and creating superior armed elitist government agencies.

Norton Firearms, Inc. is a strong defender of the US Constitution, not only the 2nd amendment. We believe that a government that restricts it Citizens from executing their Constitutional Rights is no longer a government for the people or by the people. It is our policy not to sell our products or services to any organization that tries to diminish the rights given to us by our US Constitution and our Creator.

Effective immediately, the J&T Family of Companies will be joining other manufacturers and distributors by ceasing sales of regulated items in states that have altered the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms.

Awesome :applause:

[Bang]

Straight insanity.

~Bang

[Larry]

Y'know, I hear their CEOs are eliminating their employee's health care, and doubling their own pay, because of Obamacare, too.

[doctorshockalu]

Gaining Momentum: Now 44 Gun Companies Have Stopped Selling to Law Enforcement In Anti-2nd Amendment States

The list of companies that have stopped selling firearms and ammunition to law enforcement agencies in states that are restricting the Second Amendment has more than doubled since Wednesday and is more than five times larger than just one week ago. There are 44 companies on our list, with more being added as we receive notification.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/23/gaining-momentum-now-42-gun-companies-have-stopped-selling-to-law-enforcement-in-anti-2nd-amendment-states/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=Share+Buttons

Some Company statements below;

”Due to legal, ethical and moral concerns, Citizen Arms offers only those custom firearms that are legal for all lawful citizens of a given state to possess, regardless of law enforcement status. LE personnel living in states where citizens must have restrictive features will only receive like product support from Citizen Arms. We’re very appreciative of the sacrifices made by the law enforcement community but we’re even more appreciative of the right guaranteed to all law-abiding US citizens by the Second Amendment to the US Constitution: A well regulated militia, necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

Barrett opposes those who are illegally disarming the American public from their efficient arms and creating superior armed elitist government agencies.

Norton Firearms, Inc. is a strong defender of the US Constitution, not only the 2nd amendment. We believe that a government that restricts it Citizens from executing their Constitutional Rights is no longer a government for the people or by the people. It is our policy not to sell our products or services to any organization that tries to diminish the rights given to us by our US Constitution and our Creator.

Effective immediately, the J&T Family of Companies will be joining other manufacturers and distributors by ceasing sales of regulated items in states that have altered the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms.

Awesome :applause:

Good to see. Thanks for the link.

[Bang]

Nothing like enabling criminals to make sure we can protect ourselves from criminals.

Fewer guns to cops = crime fears go up = gun sales = happy gun companies = SUCKERS.

~Bang

[bird_1972]

Awesome :applause:

This is really no cause for applause.

Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face. I guess we see what the "2nd amendment defenders" are really all about - defending the gun industry under the guise of defending liberty.

[doctorshockalu]

Chicago has strict gun laws so the "criminals" can't have them. How is that working out for them?

Now obviously this decision was made to increase sales, no doubt. But not for the reason you think. If gun owners have the option of supporting a company that protects the constitution vs a company that is complaisant in taking those liberties away, it's obvious who they will choose to buy their product from. This comes down to simple economics and I'm glad that a few companies are starting to take a stand.

And if you don't think cops don't already have enough guns, LOL. I would assume if you don't like this move, you view the constitution as a piece of paper and have no problem with gun grabbing. I respectfully disagree.

All of the gun laws are simply knee jerk reactions which I understand. However, hammers have killed more people per year than rifles. How come there isn't protests to ban hammers? If you are going simply by numbers it's the right thing to do.

[PeterMP]

$20 says that half the companies on there either have never known they've had an order from the police in such a state and so have lost no business and/or if they get one won't turn it turn (it isn't like what you put on your facebook page is legally binding).

[Larry]

$20 says that half the companies on there either have never known they've had an order from the police in such a state and so have lost no business and/or if they get one won't turn it turn (it isn't like what you put on your facebook page is legally binding).

Yeah, that's my suspicion. But I confess to having no support whatsoever.

[Bang]

$20 says that half the companies on there either have never known they've had an order from the police in such a state and so have lost no business and/or if they get one won't turn it turn (it isn't like what you put on your facebook page is legally binding).

You ever lived in an apartment with roaches?

ever try to get rid of the roaches?

While you fumigate, they go next door.

Doesn't hurt any of them.

It's an incredibly dense argument to ask "how's that working" when anyone knows they can simply take a little drive and come back with the weapons they need.

But you know that.

because to not know that you'd have to be incredibly ****ing stupid.

and i have faith in ya.

~Bang

[doctorshockalu]

It's not a dense argument if you are helping my argument. You said they simply go somewhere else to buy their guns correct? So you are admitting that gun laws do not work unless there is an 100% ban on assault weapons. You admit this is the only way it will work and this is the real reason people are against these measures. But let's say we finally do ban all assault weapons. Why would the states stop there? Why not go further and start going after regular rifles? Shotguns? Handguns?

Stricter background checks are good but the rest of the laws have been arbitrarily set so that the cosmetics of the gun is actually what is being banned. Reducing a few bullets from clips will have no effect on murders but will make it a pain in the ass to go to the shooting range. It is obvious that the politicians making these laws are relatively to completely ignorant on guns.

As you admitted in your previous post, the only way this works is if a 100% ban is implemented which is what most people are against. The fact that states are starting with small changes (that do nothing) is simply a way for to get the process started.

But you know that.

because to not know that you'd have to be incredibly ****ing stupid.

and i have faith in ya.

[IHOPSkins]

Boycott is up to 71 companies

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/02/robert-farago/firearms-industry-ny-leo-boycott-update-71-companies/

Fantastic!

[Larry]

So you are admitting that gun laws do not work unless there is an 100% ban on assault weapons.

And, for our latest entry for the "lets make up something you didn't say, and then show why I disagree with what you didn't say" award, we have . . . .

Reducing a few bullets from clips will have no effect on murders but will make it a pain in the ass to go to the shooting range. It is obvious that the politicians making these laws are relatively to completely ignorant on guns.

Right. Anybody who DOESN'T know that a few seconds spent reloading isn't important during a mass murder, but it's absolutely crucial at the target range, is completely ignorant.

[Bang]

It's not a dense argument if you are helping my argument. You said they simply go somewhere else to buy their guns correct? So you are admitting that gun laws do not work unless there is an 100% ban on assault weapons. You admit this is the only way it will work and this is the real reason people are against these measures. But let's say we finally do ban all assault weapons. Why would the states stop there? Why not go further and start going after regular rifles? Shotguns? Handguns?

Stricter background checks are good but the rest of the laws have been arbitrarily set so that the cosmetics of the gun is actually what is being banned. Reducing a few bullets from clips will have no effect on murders but will make it a pain in the ass to go to the shooting range. It is obvious that the politicians making these laws are relatively to completely ignorant on guns.

As you admitted in your previous post, the only way this works is if a 100% ban is implemented which is what most people are against. The fact that states are starting with small changes (that do nothing) is simply a way for to get the process started.

But you know that.

because to not know that you'd have to be incredibly ****ing stupid.

and i have faith in ya.

My goodness.

It seems I've overestimated you.

Maybe ES could develop something like a quick user reference so a person can click on it and see what someone believes quickly.. so they can save them the hassle of having to repeat it over and over, and it'll save you the hassle of making up my position.

Stricter more thorough background checks, closing private sales loopholes and allowing police to trace a criminal's weapons back to their sellers would go a long way toward solving many problems without having to ban anything.

There. Now you can remember my position in the future and save yourself all that ridiculous blustering.

I guess i could have done that right off the bat so there'd be no question, like you did when you made it clear that you're happy to see the police disarmed.

oops.. see how I did that? i took one statement you made, and extrapolated it into you wanting the police disarmed.

When you don't believe that and said nothing like that.

All you said was that you are happy that the gun companies will make sure it's easier for crooks to get guns than the police because they don't want their revenue streams disrupted.

~Bang

[Predicto]

This cartoon pretty much sums up the discussion for me at this point.