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

[DjTj]

I didn't imply anything. What the kids intent was is irrelevant. What the homeowner felt is what is relevant. A man enters your home at 2:30 AM. He ignores a warning shot. What is the next logical step? You don't have the luxury of hindsight and backstory in the moment. You don't know your neighbors kid snuck out, got ****faced, and snuck back in to the wrong house. You just know a strange man is climbing your stairs at 2:30 AM and ignored a warning shot. When examining incidents, you have to remove emotion and analyze based on solely what is presented, from both sides. This was a horrible situation. The homeowner did nothing wrong. The kid was drunk underage (a crime), and had unintentially committed another crime by entering the house. I know the kids family wishes it had turned out differently. I am sure the homeowner wishes the same. But based on what happened that night, there is no basis for this incident to be touted by either pro or anti gun groups.

I don't think that this story has much bearing on how we should write our gun laws, and I have already said that I think the homeowner (if his story is true) should not be charged. But it does factor into my personal decisions on whether or not to keep a gun in the home.

As Corcaigh said, if I lived out in the suburbs where crime was extremely low, it seems more likely that a gun would be involved in a tragic accident than actually repelling someone trying to do my family harm, so that would weigh against me owning and using a gun for protection. I currently live in a condo building with 24-hour security, and I also think that in my apartment, it's more likely that a gun would be involved in an accident than in repelling an intruder. If I was in a more dangerous living situation, I might look at things differently. And I could see owning a gun for recreation and keeping it locked, rather than having it at the ready for self-defense.

[Larry]

I know exactly what Corcaigh is saying, and it doesn't need to be tied to any particular stance on guns to understand. But then given my job, I'd have to fire myself if I didn't get it.

Hint: it's somewhat different yet related to the theme of people fearing dangerous things that are far less likely to happen than things that are just as dangerous but much more likely.

To put a gun spin on it in a different way---think of some arm-up-to-the-teeth guys who figure under some dumbass scenario that "the Feds" are going use FEMA "shock troops" (more on this later in another thread, with a great anecdotal example) to control the civilian population. They talk about it a lot, think about it a lot, and spend a ton of money preparing for it. But they don't worry (or wear helmets) when doing drunken high-speed four-wheeling on the beach dunes for fun. Their regular weekly routine is far more likely to bring them harm than their paranoid idiocy, but they don't even think about it.

I am also sure none of that helped those I'd addressing at all.

We simple make up all kinds of **** in our heads out of worry/fear and then hammer into our consciousness by repetition and parroting until we're sure it's reasonable, but it's not.

There's more than one reason people appear where they're not supposed to and not all those reason should be met with a quick decision to shoot the person. Now this article says he fired a warning shot first and then yelled and the kid kept coming and the assumption is he couldn't tell it was some drunk kid who might not mean harm. IF all that is true, I don't blame the guy since he did fire a warning shot and did give verbal warning (according to the reports). If he's not telling the truth and just shot the kid and then tried a pad his story, that's another matter and would need to be proved.

I note that I am in a bit of a "babble" mood today at work, too.

Just admiring the way you analogize a person fearing people breaking into his home in the dark of night, for the purpose os kidnapping, robbing, torturing, or killing the occupants (something which does, in fact, happen) by comparing it to mass civilian roundups to FEMA concentration camps (which does not.)

Yes, I'm well aware that the number of people killed by people in hockey masks with axes is much smaller than the number killed by drunk drivers. But

a) Those people, I suspect, do actually exist.

And the fact that "well, there exists some other threat which is more likely" does not in any way mean that "therefore you're a loon if you take steps to prevent this other, lesser, threat".

[Jumbo]

Read what I wrote more carefully, Larry. I didn't analogize. I noted I was moving into a distinctly different track in an attempt to maybe jar some connectivity. I even noted this in more than one way in more than one paragraph on that post. Nor did my comments focus on the specific incident at hand, but were generalized to a theme Corcaigh was addressing. As you are frequently told in this forum, your penchant for false attribution is an unfortunate signature of too many of your posts.

[Larry]

I understand. The circumstances (time of night, forced entry, unresponsive), and the belief of there being a real risk of being attacked in your home, suggests to you and many others that killing the intruder was unequivocally the right decision. Except it was a drunk teenager in this case.

By way of a comparison ... if I decide my home is at risk from intruders and acquire aggressive guard dogs to protect it, I am increasing the risk that the dogs will attack a neighbor, family member or someone who is not a threat. I am making a choice, a security trade off. Maybe the presence of dogs will keep me safe against actual threats and be worth the chance of loved ones coming to harm by the dogs, and the expense of owning the guard dogs.

Choosing to have a gun in the home is a trade-off too.

Agreed.

The decision to bring a gun into the home, the decision whether or not to lock it up, the decision whether or not to keep it loaded, the decision as to what kind of load to load it with, the decision whether or not to go fetch it, the decision whether or not to fire . . .

All of them are trade offs. Decisions made on the basis of sometimes contradictory risks.

And, it's a perfectly valid point, to point out that said decisions are made on perceived risks. Not necessarily actual risks.

Such is the nature of life. (And, sometimes, death.)

---------- Post added March-20th-2013 at 01:24 PM ----------

Look, it may not be a smooth thought to include, but in all these arguments about gun possession, you can't underestimate all the reasons used to augment that basic fact that most of us males (and many women who like/desire firearms) feel very potent (along with feeling more safe/secure) when we have firearms at our disposal (especially when we know others have them and we want to be equally capable) and experience that feeling (potency/formidability) when we play with them. It is a very powerful psychological element underpinning all these things. I have it, I heart my guns, but I do avoid falling into the idiot pit so many seem as comfy in as their play room.

Agreed that emotions do enter into such situations, too.

Not everybody is as Vulcan as I am.

Although I also feel like it's easy to go too far with the "gun nuts like playing with guns cause they think it makes them feel more like a man" line of psychobabble, too.

[Popeman38]

I don't think that this story has much bearing on how we should write our gun laws, and I have already said that I think the homeowner (if his story is true) should not be charged. But it does factor into my personal decisions on whether or not to keep a gun in the home.

What you just posted is awesome -- for you. That is a personal choice. What everyone is talking about is making it more difficult for someone who makes a different choice. This board is up in arms when a state proposes an ID card is required to vote. It is up in arms when free speech is censored. It is up in arms when free press is threatened. Yet I think the majority of this board is on board with outright bans on certain weapons and very restrictive ownership rights for all others. One Constitutional right has repeatedly been targeted for the last 25 years with law after law after law after law. People on this board complain about loopholes in the myriad of laws regulating this one right. There has been more than 1 poster on this board that wants this right abolished.

I have stated many times over that I think there are very reasonable restrictions of this right that can be enacted that protects the public without infringing on this right. But in order to do that, emotion has to be removed from the equation and idiots can't be in charge (Congress). An AWB does nothing to address the issue. All it does is label an option on a gun as assault weapon worthy. Most of the "assault weapons" have versions that function exactly the same but don't look "scary". Scary doesn't equal dangerous.

[Larry]

In all these issues, where the change proposed seems insurmountable (like gays being able to marry), people who desire a change often can only achieve by a slow and steady chipping away at the status quo, rather than just resign because "it's impossible--can't change it."

Now that chipping away to reach a desired change in some social attitude doesn't mean it automatically needs to go to the opposite extreme.

A growing proportion of society may be leaning towards the desire to not have the U.S be such a heavily armed camp to such (as they might see it) an excessive degree and wish (believe it could be achieved) for far less death by firearms and thus begin to work to where attitudes and views change to where citizens still have guns, just not so many for so many and with such a Fort Apache (or just stupid-crazy) mentality showing in so many (especially well-armed) citizens.

So that would be one vantage point from which such people may choose to continue to beat their head against that brick wall like people did on integration, women's suffrage, gay marriage, or eating fish on Fridays. :pfft:

Also agree.

I would like to see a de-escellation of the number of guns, and on gun usage. (If there's a way to cause the latter without the former, I'd be happy to take that road.)

And yes, I recognize that it's going to be one of those gradual, societal, shifts. Something that will take a generation at least. (And which might well, like our nation's relations with blacks, take considerable longer than that.)

Heck, changing society's opinions on drunk driving didn't happen all that quickly. And drunk driving didn't have what I think of as the "significant non-infringing use" issue on it's side.

(Reference to the

Betamax

USSC decision, which ruled that the fact that VCRs

could

be used to violate copyright, did not warrant banning them, because VCRs also had uses which did not harm society.)

And yes, I think that we need to be moving in that direction. (I think of myself as rather libertarian. And I strongly support the rights of citizens to keep and bear (and use, in some circumstances) firearms. But I also think that we need to at least be putting some of what I think are common sense restrictions on them.)

IMO, it's obvious that no change in our society's views towards guns, and their use, is going to sweep the nation quickly. If nothing else, simple logistics (the number of guns already present in society) guarantees that.

And, recognition of the fact that it won't happen overnight, to me, does not lend any weight to the gun right's argument of "therefore, we cannot consider starting the movement".

[Jumbo]

I am used to seeing psyhcobabble coming from the people who know far less than they think they do about psychology.

And Vulcans make sure of their facts before making claims. Spock was one of my heroes/role models, too. I just got a good dose of Klingon somewhere along the way.

Maybe growing up in Alaska.

[DjTj]

What you just posted is awesome -- for you. That is a personal choice. What everyone is talking about is making it more difficult for someone who makes a different choice. This board is up in arms when a state proposes an ID card is required to vote. It is up in arms when free speech is censored. It is up in arms when free press is threatened. Yet I think the majority of this board is on board with outright bans on certain weapons and very restrictive ownership rights for all others. One Constitutional right has repeatedly been targeted for the last 25 years with law after law after law after law. People on this board complain about loopholes in the myriad of laws regulating this one right. There has been more than 1 poster on this board that wants this right abolished.

I don't know if you're reading the same board that I am, but it seems to me that posters get just as outraged about gun laws as they do about violations of many other rights.

Privacy and due process rights for pregnant women thinking about abortion? Equal Protection rights for gay marriage? Due process rights for suspected terrorists in Guantanamo? There are plenty of rights under attack in this discussion forum and elsewhere.

And the Second Amendment rights advocates are actually doing better than the advocates of some of those other rights. An assault weapons ban isn't going to make it into federal law. The NRA is going to win, again. You might feel under attack in this forum, but you're winning where it counts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/03/19/assault-weapons-ban-likely-to-die-in-full-senate/

[Larry]

What you just posted is awesome -- for you. That is a personal choice. What everyone is talking about is making it more difficult for someone who makes a different choice. This board is up in arms when a state proposes an ID card is required to vote. It is up in arms when free speech is censored. It is up in arms when free press is threatened. Yet I think the majority of this board is on board with outright bans on certain weapons and very restrictive ownership rights for all others. One Constitutional right has repeatedly been targeted for the last 25 years with law after law after law after law. People on this board complain about loopholes in the myriad of laws regulating this one right. There has been more than 1 poster on this board that wants this right abolished.

I have stated many times over that I think there are very reasonable restrictions of this right that can be enacted that protects the public without infringing on this right. But in order to do that, emotion has to be removed from the equation and idiots can't be in charge (Congress). An AWB does nothing to address the issue. All it does is label an option on a gun as assault weapon worthy. Most of the "assault weapons" have versions that function exactly the same but don't look "scary". Scary doesn't equal dangerous.

1) My personal opinion?

I think that, when society places more restrictions on owning, keeping, selling, or operating a car, than it does on a gun, then things need to change until that is no longer true. Something is wrong with this picture.

I strongly support the rights of citizens (including myself) to keep, bear, and use (under some circumstances) firearms.

I don't see any Constitutional Right to anonymously, untraceably keep and bear arms.

2) As to the Assault Weapons Ban? Yes, I freely agree, it seems to be based more on cosmetics. And association.

(I read a proposed assault weapons ban, some time ago. It dealt with things like "if a different version of this weapon is offered with the option of having a mount for a bayonet". The weapon doesn't have to have a bayonet. It doesn't have to have the option of a bayonet. If a different version of the weapon has an option of having the mount for a bayonet, then that counts. I think one of the other things that was considered was if the clip was located in front of the trigger.)

OTOH, I will observe that, frankly, I suspect that writing an assault weapons ban is rather tricky. I'm not sure I can do a better one. And I have no doubt that, no matter where you draw the line, there will be some weapon that will be close to the line, that people will complain about. (It's kind of like the drinking age. Whatever you come up with, it's gonna be arbitrary, and people complain that it ought to be moved one way or the other.)

And I will observe that things like cosmetics, and how the weapon makes people feel (both the owner, and the "audience", if you will), are factors. Maybe not the most important factors, but they do exist.

---------- Post added March-20th-2013 at 02:08 PM ----------

I don't know if you're reading the same board that I am, but it seems to me that posters get just as outraged about gun laws as they do about violations of many other rights.

Privacy and due process rights for pregnant women thinking about abortion? Equal Protection rights for gay marriage? Due process rights for suspected terrorists in Guantanamo? There are plenty of rights under attack in this discussion forum and elsewhere.

And the Second Amendment rights advocates are actually doing better than the advocates of some of those other rights. An assault weapons ban isn't going to make it into federal law. The NRA is going to win, again. You might feel under attack in this forum, but you're winning where it counts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/03/19/assault-weapons-ban-likely-to-die-in-full-senate/

Yeah, I agree that the gun rights people have been doing a whole lot better than, say, the abortion rights people. For decades.

It's starting to look like the legislative response to Newtown is going to be . . . nothing. At least nationally.

Which I don't necessarily disagree with.

While writing some of these posts, I've had my usual reactions to some of the really monumentally stupid arguments that the gun rights people trot out every single time the issue comes up. And I've had this mental image of applying the same monumentally stupid arguments to our national response to 9/11.

"Terrorists don't obey laws. Therefore we must not pass any laws whatsoever designed to make terrorism

harder

".

"Killing 3,000 people is already illegal. Therefore we must not pass any more laws."

But then, I

also

reflect that I'm not real happy about the response that Congress

did

make, to 9/11. ("Let's drag out every law that's been sitting in committee that has anything whatsoever to do with giving law enforcement or the military more powers than they already have,

claim

that this law is now an anti-terrorism law (regardless of what the law was originally billed as), throw them all into the World's Biggest Sausage, and pass the thing, right now, while the people are at their most emotionally knee-jerk. That way, we can say we reacted quickly, and we Did Something.")

So, I'm not sure that what we did after 9/11 is the model I want to hold up as what our response to Newtown should have been.

My opinion is that our response ought to be something in between doing nothing and throwing everything up right now while we're at maximum panic.

[Jumbo]

Most of the time someone uses the phrase "this board", they say more about themselves then this board.

[Larry]

Most of the time someone uses the phrase "this board", they say more about themselves then this board.

Oh, I've come to that conclusion most any time people make any generalities about society at large.

(I've attempted to apply that rule to myself, too. But it's hard.)

[Corcaigh]

What you just posted is awesome -- for you. That is a personal choice. What everyone is talking about is making it more difficult for someone who makes a different choice.

To be clear, I raised the recent incident in Sterling because of what it projected (to me) about perceived risk and safety. Not about a specific proposal to restrict ownership. If you believe that there is a significant risk of you being attacked in your home, you will behave differently than someone who does not hold that view.

Getting someone who believes they need to defend their home against a real threat to change their behavior will always be a very tough sell.

[Redskins Diehard]

We will once again hear people explain to us how the rights of people who want to use assault weapons to shoot paper targets outweigh the rights of people who don't want to get shot. How having to reload is meaningless to mass murderers, but an insurmountable difficulty to people shooting paper targets.

:

How do you define "assault weapon"?

[Larry]

How do you define "assault weapon"?

From a quote I made, later than the one you're quoting:

2) As to the Assault Weapons Ban? Yes, I freely agree, it seems to be based more on cosmetics. And association.

(I read a proposed assault weapons ban, some time ago. It dealt with things like "if a different version of this weapon is offered with the option of having a mount for a bayonet". The weapon doesn't have to have a bayonet. It doesn't have to have the option of a bayonet. If a different version of the weapon has an option of having the mount for a bayonet, then that counts. I think one of the other things that was considered was if the clip was located in front of the trigger.)

OTOH, I will observe that, frankly, I suspect that writing an assault weapons ban is rather tricky. I'm not sure I can do a better one. And I have no doubt that, no matter where you draw the line, there will be some weapon that will be close to the line, that people will complain about. (It's kind of like the drinking age. Whatever you come up with, it's gonna be arbitrary, and people complain that it ought to be moved one way or the other.)

And I will observe that things like cosmetics, and how the weapon makes people feel (both the owner, and the "audience", if you will), are factors. Maybe not the most important factors, but they do exist.

[Redskins Diehard]

From a quote I made, later than the one you're quoting:

Then I guess I am missing the point you are advancing with respect to assault weapons ban being removed from the current legislation.

[Larry]

Then I guess I am missing the point you are advancing with respect to assault weapons ban being removed from the current legislation.

I said that I have no doubt that a legal definition is difficult.

That doesn't mean that (to pull a hypothetical extreme) we have to have no restrictions at all on semi-auto AK-47s.

To use a different analogy, it's hard to come up with a precise, scientific, rule for a drinking age that will get 100% approval.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't have a drinking age at all. It means we need to come up with some place to draw the line. Knowing in advance that wherever we draw it, there will be some things that are near the line, that people will argue about, one way or the other.

[Jumbo]

Then I guess I am missing the point you are advancing with respect to assault weapons ban being removed from the current legislation.

Make no mistake. Don't be fooled. The Secret Muslim is still coming after our weapons!!!

[Larry]

Make no mistake. Don't be fooled. The Secret Muslim is still coming after our weapons!!!

Stay alert. Trust no one. Keep your laser handy.

[/obscure, OT, reference inserted purely for comedy that probably no one will get.]

[Redskins Diehard]

I said that I have no doubt that a legal definition is difficult.

That doesn't mean that (to pull a hypothetical extreme) we have to have no restrictions at all on semi-auto AK-47s.

To use a different analogy, it's hard to come up with a precise, scientific, rule for a drinking age that will get 100% approval.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't have a drinking age at all. It means we need to come up with some place to draw the line. Knowing in advance that wherever we draw it, there will be some things that are near the line, that people will argue about, one way or the other.

I personally think the debate over "assault weapons" is detracting attention from the debate that needs to be had in order to try and minimize the number of incidents and magnitude. If we are going to have an emotional discussion about "limiting" the 2d amendment then I would prefer to see legislation that addresses VaTech and Tucson and Newton and Aurora and Columbine(which actually took place during an assault weapons ban) etc. From what I have read about these particular incidents the lack of a ban on high capacity magazines positively impacted the outcome of one(Aurora magazine jam). And a ban on the traditional defining characteristics of an "assault weapon" would not have minimized much of anything.

I think real gains can be made in limiting the access to any weapon, not just assault weapons. I've thought in terms of the marketplace(gun show, store, etc) that it is reasonable to require proof of a background check and possibly proof of some sort of "mental health" screening. That leaves a lot of holes but plugs some also. And a lot more than bayonet lugs and flash suppressors

I don't own a single thing that would be impacted by any definition of "assault weapon".

[Larry]

And I certainly think that "closing the gun show loophole" would probably be a much bigger contribution that an AWB.

I will observe that the article I posted pointed out that closing that loophole was voted against by every single Republican on the committee. (And I think this was after the NRA publicly announced that they wouldn't fight closing that loophole, and that they wouldn't use that issue when they give their congressmen their report cards.)

If I'm not mistaken, the impression I have is that many of the mass shooters got their weapons from legal owners who made no effort to keep their weapons secure. Frankly, I would love to see some kinds of laws that would result in more responsible ownership. (But I freely admit that there really isn't a good way of doing that that isn't really ugly.)

I really think that tracking weapon ownership is part of that whole "responsible ownership" thing. (I like to imagine that maybe it would result in gun owners being more responsible about their storage. But I freely admit that that's probably wishful thinking.)

[Mad Mike]

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.

This isn't the UK. Like it or not, the hundreds of millions of guns in civilian hands are not going away short of martial law and likely civil war. No amount of wishful thinking will make it otherwise. So given the reality of the situation, if we are serious about saving lives, we need solutions that take those facts into account.

[MartinC]

This isn't the UK. Like it or not, the hundreds of millions of guns in civilian hands are not going away short of martial law and likely civil war. No amount of wishful thinking will make it otherwise. So given the reality of the situation, if we are serious about saving lives, we need solutions that take those facts into account.

The key difference between the UK and US is the scale of gun ownership and attitude to guns (and of course the relative size of population). Before you can start to come up with serious solutions which take the fact of that situation in hand there has to be a consensus there is a problem and crucially what that problem is. My sense from these kinds of threads and what I read in the media when I'm in the US is that this consensus does not yet exist.

When I see a solution suggested to shootings in schools of arming teachers that tells me at least some people don't understand the problem.

[Mad Mike]

The key difference between the UK and US is the scale of gun ownership and attitude to guns (and of course the relative size of population). Before you can start to come up with serious solutions which take the fact of that situation in hand there has to be a consensus there is a problem and crucially what that problem is. My sense from these kinds of threads and what I read in the media when I'm in the US is that this consensus does not yet exist.

When I see a solution suggested to shootings in schools of arming teachers that tells me at least some people don't understand the problem.

Some people will never understand a given problem regardless of where they live. But we can start by clearly identifying the problem and not letting pure emotion drive us to bad "solutions".

Example 1: So called "high capacity" magazines. 15 rounds is now pretty much the standard for 40cal or less, full sized handguns. Many can hold a few more than that. Banning 15 round mags is almost unenforceable unless you plan on police searching from house to house. Modern semi auto weapons can be re-loaded in about 1 second with just a little practice. So where is the benefit to initiating a costly almost unenforceable ban for a gain of 1 second in a shooting situation? How many lives will it save? - I would bet, close to none. (I wouldn't have a problem banning what I would call "double capacity" or very high capacity magazines without special licensing)

Example 2: So called assault weapons. (I say "so called" because they have become ubiquitous. Used for everything from sport shooting at the range to hunting, to home defense.) There are over 5 million of them privately owned in the US. Yet less than 4% of all murders are committed with them. Are we to expend our political clout on banning them when that same energy can save more lives by addressing issues that would have a greater impact and save more lives just because they look scary and have a scary name?

Bottom line is that with limited political clout and public support for bans, the best way to save the most lives is with improved and expanded background checks, stricter laws and better education for firearm storage to keep weapons from un-intended users like the Sandy Hook killer, and better education and access to mental health systems that can identify and help the most potentially dangerous people in society.

As for arming teachers... no. Bad idea. But I have no problem with at least one school official, be it a security guard or administrative person with the proper training, background checks and mental health screening being armed as a deterrent and emergency defense against a shooter.

[MartinC]

Some people will never understand a given problem regardless of where they live. But we can start by clearly identifying the problem and not letting pure emotion drive us to bad "solutions".

Totally agree with the above.

Bottom line is that with limited political clout and public support for bans, the best way to save the most lives is with improved and expanded background checks, stricter laws and better education for firearm storage to keep weapons from un-intended users like the Sandy Hook killer, and better education and access to mental health systems that can identify and help the most potentially dangerous people in society.

All the above seem like sensible measures and its not going to any single silver bullet (excuse the pun) which solves this but a whole series of measures along with education which gradually over time change attitudes to guns and reduce the.number of guns in private ownership.

[Kindred]

I think there needs to be more accountability between guns and any party responsible for them being used in a criminal manner, holding them responsible. e.g. sell guns @ gun shows without checks and you're held responsible. Lose a gun without reporting it or properly securing it and you're held responsible. When selling or giving a gun to somebody, you must properly transfer such responsibility or you will be held accountable.