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

[Bang]

In your first quote you said they will get the guns somewhere else. Not sure how anyone would read that first post and understand you have a completely different viewpoint. As for the lame snide comments, you are too old for that nonsense.

it's not hard to figure out that individual places within the Union that have gun control laws have a hard time controlling any guns when their surrounding neighbor states have different laws that criminals can exploit, (and potentially have sellers willing to make the bet that crime pays.).

When Mayors of cities, police departments study these things and find out where the guns are coming from, they'e powerless to stop it.

Some of the lax loopholes and restrictions on law enforcement that have been lobbied into place by gun manufacturers make it practically impossible for any isolated place to follow the weill of their people and try to curb the flow of weapons.

SO, askin 'how's that workin'" for places like DC or NY or Chicago is a very dishonest argument, unless one really doesn't comprehend how easy it is to drive back and forth across state lines.

Background checks, putting the system to work and allowing the laws to be enforced more uniformly in an effort to aid law enforcement in getting to the bottom roots of illegal guns will go a long way to stem some of these problems, and will not result in more than a slight paperwork inconvenience for law abiding gun owners who want to shoot targets, hunt, protect the home, or just collect them to admire. Whatever reason they want the gun, it should not be denied to them so long as they pass the background checks.

we're never ever going to get a handle on all gun violence,, gang violence and lover's spats that turn violent, etc.. these will always happen. what we CAN do is try to cut back on the number of really bad people and crazies getting their hands on so many weapons legally.

I don't know if this sounds right to say, but it would be easier to stomach some of these mass shootings if the shooter had not gotten hold of their weapons legally. But they do, and they are who i think this latest wave of gun control cries are trying to eliminate.

~Bang

[doctorshockalu]

Bang, I agree with your last response but I'm still not sure how this NY law is going to help these issues brought up. The cosmetic part of the law will do absolutely nothing because it just makes it look less scary. The private sales background check is a good thing but not allowing assault weapons to be bought online causes the price to go up, nothing more (which I assume is the point). Changing clips from 10 bullets to 7 bullets does nothing to help gun violence especially since millions of 10 bullet clips are already in the US. Making it a misdemeanor crime for a 10 clip found in your home seems reasonable since most gun owners will gladly take the extra protection for a small legal risk. I question if the bullet database will be streamlined enough to be efficient but if there is a way it can work, I'm all for it.

But my biggest issue with the knee jerk reaction is found in the census data on gun violence.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0310.pdf

Taking 2009's statistics we have the following.

It states that 359 deaths were from rifles. There were a total of 9,203 firearm deaths. Let's just assume all 359 deaths were from assault rifles (which obviously is not true).

359/9,203 = 3.9%

We are adding more layers of government to stop less than 4% of murders. Knives killed 521% more people in the same year. Why not apply laws to knives? It would be more statistically significant. Hence, why I consider this nothing more than a knee jerk reaction.

[mikered30]

No assault weapons ban in the current gun bill. It will have to be an amendment and it will get shot down.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GUN_CONTROL_CONGRESS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-03-19-13-51-09

[Larry]

No assault weapons ban in the current gun bill. It will have to be an amendment and it will get shot down.

No pun intended?

[mikered30]

Correct, no pun intended. I guess we will have to wait for the next mass shooting to bring this up again, which is what we said last time.

[Corcaigh]

Based on a very recent incident here in suburban northern Virginia it's clear that attitudes, fear and perception of risk are a huge factor. The story emerging in the last few days here is that a widely liked teenager (who had been partying and was possibly drunk), dropped off by his friends in the early hours at the end of the street so they wouldn't wake the parents, entered the wrong house two doors down from where he lived (cookie-cutter McMansions). The homeowner neighbor (a well liked guy and volunteer firefighter) shoots the teenager. His 16 year old neighbor dies in his hallway.

This is in a wealthy suburban neighborhood home values >$500k with no reported crime outside of rare petty theft on cars.

What's apparent in the online discussions is that a huge number of people think the homeowner was entirely correct to shoot to kill. That the risk that the homeowner was going to be killed by an intruder trumped any caution in case it was in fact a kid making a mistake, with terrible consequences. That any attempt by the homeowner to determine the identity of the person by turning on the light and warning them would be foolish as he would surrender a tactical advantage.

This is a huge issue for gun owners - if your fear of being killed in your home by an unknown assailant is greater than your concern that you might kill a family member or someone else by accident, then these types of tragedies will continue.

[Bang]

Apparently a bad situation was dodged in Florida yesterday.. a student had a rifle and handgun and a bag of bombs, and was seen by a dorm mate who called 911.. the would-be gunman killed himself.

~Bang

[MattFancy]

Based on a very recent incident here in suburban northern Virginia it's clear that attitudes, fear and perception of risk are a huge factor. The story emerging in the last few days here is that a widely liked teenager (who had been partying and was possibly drunk), dropped off by his friends in the early hours at the end of the street so they wouldn't wake the parents, entered the wrong house two doors down from where he lived (cookie-cutter McMansions). The homeowner neighbor (a well liked guy and volunteer firefighter) shoots the teenager. His 16 year old neighbor dies in his hallway.

This is in a wealthy suburban neighborhood home values >$500k with no reported crime outside of rare petty theft on cars.

What's apparent in the online discussions is that a huge number of people think the homeowner was entirely correct to shoot to kill. That the risk that the homeowner was going to be killed by an intruder trumped any caution in case it was in fact a kid making a mistake, with terrible consequences. That any attempt by the homeowner to determine the identity of the person by turning on the light and warning them would be foolish as he would surrender a tactical advantage.

This is a huge issue for gun owners - if your fear of being killed in your home by an unknown assailant is greater than your concern that you might kill a family member or someone else by accident, then these types of tragedies will continue.

Ah the old, shoot first, ask questions later.

[Jumbo]

I think you can solve more problems with guns than "thinking".

What the world needs now is guns, just guns, that's the only thing that there's just too little of.

I really think the more people shooting other people, the better things will get, eventually.

[Corcaigh]

Ah the old, shoot first, ask questions later.

Not so much ... it's based on a heightened perception of one risk, and the discounting of another.

Some of my neighbors who are bright and caring people simply don't understand attitudes in other parts of the world. They think arming yourself is an appropriate security measure in a very safe society. They don't accept the point of view that in a community where the risk of a violent intruder is incredibly small (no-one knows of it every happening); that fear of a stranger is not more important than the other risk they need to weigh up of having a weapon in the house presenting a threat to the family, whether from an angry family member losing control, an inquisitive child meeting a lack of adequate precaution by the gun owner, or someone under the influence, or someone taking their own life.

[Bang]

{quote= Jumbo]What the world needs now is guns, just guns, that's the only thing that there's just too little of.

Imagine all the bullets

It's easy if you try

Fire quick and duck

Make sure that one is for the other guy

Imagine all the people

armed to the teeeeth

yoo hooo ooo.

Imagine all your neighbors

living in armed camps

squinting through the curtains

with trigger finger cramps

Imagine all the people

Shooting each other dead

yooo hooo ooo

Imagine all the blood

the sum of all your fears

Made reality by your own self.

(It OK, we'll blame it on the queers)

Imagine all your children...

growing up in this

yooo hooo ooo

You may say I'm a dreamer

Wel, I'm not the only one

the only way we'll ever be safe

is if everyone has a gun

Imagine all the loonies

cruising past your house

the NRA says they're out there

So are you a man or a mouse?

~Bang! BangBangBang!

[Jumbo]

Topped at one of my own games. :notworthy

[Predicto]

Epic post

Holy &$#@!

[Larry]

Yahoo: Assault weapons ban dropped from Senate bill

Democrats on Tuesday confirmed that a proposed ban on assault weapons will not be included in a package of gun reform legislation yet to be introduced in the Senate, suggesting the measures do not have broad support in Congress.

The bill's sponsor, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, confirmed to reporters Tuesday that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will remove an assault weapons ban from a package of gun reform legislation, and offer it separately as an amendment.

"I very much regret it," Feinstein said of Reid's decision. "I tried my best."

More at the link. Discusses several measures in the package.

The Senate Judiciary Committee on March 14 passed Feinstein's bill, which banned assault weapons as well as magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The committee has also passed a bill that would expand background checks for gun buyers and close the so-called gun show loophole that allows people to avoid a background check if they buy weapons from private sellers. That bill, which Democrats on the committee hoped could attract Republican support, passed without a single Republican vote, a bad sign for its chances in the Senate.

[Mad Mike]

Based on a very recent incident here in suburban northern Virginia it's clear that attitudes, fear and perception of risk are a huge factor. The story emerging in the last few days here is that a widely liked teenager (who had been partying and was possibly drunk), dropped off by his friends in the early hours at the end of the street so they wouldn't wake the parents, entered the wrong house two doors down from where he lived (cookie-cutter McMansions). The homeowner neighbor (a well liked guy and volunteer firefighter) shoots the teenager. His 16 year old neighbor dies in his hallway.

This is in a wealthy suburban neighborhood home values >$500k with no reported crime outside of rare petty theft on cars.

What's apparent in the online discussions is that a huge number of people think the homeowner was entirely correct to shoot to kill. That the risk that the homeowner was going to be killed by an intruder trumped any caution in case it was in fact a kid making a mistake, with terrible consequences. That any attempt by the homeowner to determine the identity of the person by turning on the light and warning them would be foolish as he would surrender a tactical advantage.

This is a huge issue for gun owners - if your fear of being killed in your home by an unknown assailant is greater than your concern that you might kill a family member or someone else by accident, then these types of tragedies will continue.

Yeah, I want to see you have this conversation with yourself if someone breaks into your home. :doh:

[Corcaigh]

Yeah, I want to see you have this conversation with yourself if someone breaks into your home. :doh:

You miss the point. What i'm questioning is the common attitude that for someone living in a crime-free area the MOST PRUDENT thing to do is shoot someone in the dark.

My kids are now out of the teenage years and have moved out. We live on a street of large family homes with many teens coming and going. On four separate occasions neighborhood kids have wandered into our house by mistake. Each time it scared the bajeesus out of me. None of them were shot.

[doctorshockalu]

There is so such thing as a crime free area.

[FanboyOf91]

Yeah, I want to see you have this conversation with yourself if someone breaks into your home. :doh:

Especially when that someone triggers the burglar alarm and doesn't stop when commanded.

[Mad Mike]

You miss the point. What i'm questioning is the common attitude that for someone living in a crime-free area the MOST PRUDENT thing to do is shoot someone in the dark.

My kids are now out of the teenage years and have moved out. We live on a street of large family homes with many teens coming and going. On four separate occasions neighborhood kids have wandered into our house by mistake. Each time it scared the bajeesus out of me. None of them were shot.

Did they wander in a door or crawl into a window in the middle of the night. BIG friggin difference.

And as someone pointed out, there is no such thing as a "crime free area". Trust me, if you could find statistics for break-ins in the middle of the night, 99% of the time, it's someone with bad intent.

And here's a thought, understanding the idea that someone could be scared for their life when someone brakes into their house in the middle of the night is *not* an endorsement for a wild west mentality.

This incident was a tragic accident. Move on.

[Corcaigh]

And here's a good example of the point I was making .... It seems that the last three posters believe that shooting the unknown intruder is the most logical way to behave. That the risks of being attacked, however small, always outweigh the possibility of another situation.

iMO, people overestimate the risk of a violent assault, and underestimate the risk that their ownership of a weapon will result in a tragic situation occurring in their home. We all make security trade offs in our lives based on how we assess risks.

[Larry]

And here's a good example of the point I was making .... It seems that the last three posters believe that shooting the unknown intruder is the most logical way to behave. That the risks of being attacked, however small, always outweigh the possibility of another situation.

iMO, people overestimate the risk of a violent assault, and underestimate the risk that their ownership of a weapon will result in a tragic situation occurring in their home. We all make security trade offs in our lives based on how we assess risks.

And here's a good example of what's wrong with your position.

You make blanket statements of opinion. You refer to the neighborhood as low crime as though this is sine how important. The neighborhood then becomes crime FREE. Near as I can tell, you have yet to mention that the teen broke into somebody's house at 2AM.

You describe how you've had neighborhood kids wander into your house by mistake, (something which, i'll admit, i have trouble believing, myself. I have NEVER had that happen, myself), and how virtuous you were not to shoot them. Other people ask if these kids wandered in through an open door on a pleasant afternoon, or broke in through a window at 2AM.

You fail to notice the question.

The last three posters pointed out legitimate reasons for the homeowner to be fearful.

You ignore the facts they're pointing out, announce that they've proved your point, and claim that all three of them have said something which not one of them actually said. Specifically, "That the risks of being attacked, however small, always outweigh the possibility of another situation."

[Redskins Diehard]

Correct, no pun intended. I guess we will have to wait for the next mass shooting to bring this up again, which is what we said last time.

It will probably get brought up again. And people will probably realize again that the "assault weapon ban" really doesn't address what leads to these tragedies or the magnitude of them. I hope the bill they do propose actually addresses some of those.

[MartinC]

This incident was a tragic accident. Move on.

How many tragic accidents (not to mention willful acts of murder) do there have to be before people start to think if the cure is worse than the disease?

[MisterPinstripe]

How many tragic accidents (not to mention willful acts of murder) do there have to be before people start to think if the cure is worse than the disease?

The tragic accidents dont happen that much. And when you look at the statistics, would have to happen a whole lot.

US Department of Justice:

38 percent of assaults and 60 percent of rapes occur during home invasions.

An estimated 3.7 million burglaries occurred each year on

average from 2003 to 2007.

A household member was present in roughly 1 million burglaries

and became victims of violent crimes in 266,560 burglaries.

[MartinC]

The tragic accidents dont happen that much. And when you look at the statistics, would have to happen a whole lot.

US Department of Justice:

38 percent of assaults and 60 percent of rapes occur during home invasions.

An estimated 3.7 million burglaries occurred each year on

average from 2003 to 2007.

A household member was present in roughly 1 million burglaries

and became victims of violent crimes in 266,560 burglaries.

We have similar stats on break ins (as we call them rather than home invasions) in the UK. Hardly any home holders have or feel the need to own a gun and there are very very few criminals who break into peoples homes in the UK who do so carrying a gun. Armed robbery in the UK on domestic premises is very rare. No arms race between home owners and criminals?

Criminals do have and use guns in the UK of course but they almost exclusively use them to shoot each other. I have used the following stat in a few of these threads - last full years data I could find was 2010 and there were 8,775 murders (not deaths murders) by firearm in the US - there were 58 murders by firearm in the UK in the same year which adjusting for population size would be 290. 8775 versus 290 - thats a stark difference.

The overall murder rates are also interesting. In 2010 in the US there were 12,996 murders by any means and in the UK 638 which adjusted for population equals 3,095. Still a stark difference in two societies which are very very similar in terms of education, advanced democracy, economies, access to and use of the same popular culture etc etc. I find it hard to explain the difference in anyway apart from our differing attitudes to and access to guns.