Stugein Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 Someone who wants to drive drunk will find a way to drive drunk. The law punishes the law abiding. If the criminals followed the law, then they wouldn't be criminals. Why do they care if they are breaking the law in a drug free school zone if they want to drive drunk. This is just a feel good law.See what I did there? Bad example? The action (murder/drunk driving) is already outlawed. This is just further restricting the implements. This is akin to saying that a person who is otherwise legally allowed to purchase alcohol and drink is only allowed to purchase certain kinds of liqour, or can only purchase two cans of beer at a time for personal use, etc. because some people might abuse alcohol and get in a car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasefan31 Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 I'm not sure how you think educating someone on how to use their weapon properly would decrease the chances of them using it to inflict harm. I do agree that lowering the value of contraband would make a huge difference in crime rates, although I'm not sure it relates to mass shootings. I do feel that the school related shootings are partly due to public schools having unhealthy students forced onto them. 20 years ago, you wouldn't have seen a lot of these types of students in the classroom setting. The "no child left behind" and other similar programs have taken unstable children who have special needs out of group homes, and special schools and put them into special ed programs and general classrooms of public schools all across the nation. Many of these schools are not equipped to deal with the special care of such individuals, and some of the students would lead a much happier, more productive life if they were given the special care we once determined they needed. ---------- Post added January-15th-2013 at 02:47 PM ---------- Not sure, but I know that the three round max cap in my 12 gauge slows me down. BTW, a magazine can be easily modified to accept fewer rounds, in the exact same way my shotgun is modified. Are you saying sticking a wooden dowel or similar plug in the magazine would make it legal? I am a little unclear on the wording of what is and isn't going to be accepted as legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 Bad example? The action (murder/drunk driving) is already outlawed. This is just further restricting the implements. This is akin to saying that a person who is otherwise legally allowed to purchase alcohol and drink is only allowed to purchase certain kinds of liqour, or can only purchase two cans of beer at a time for personal use, etc. because some people might abuse alcohol and get in a car. But some alcohol is banned. Pretty sure moonshine is illegal. And what about those people who are at the .08 limit, but can still function perfectly fine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sikbug Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 It's weird, because, I live in NY state, but I live in NYC, which is a whole different world. Guns are pretty much fully banned in NYC anyway, so even though I am a resident of NY state, this has no effect on me. Bans like this won't really make a huge difference unless it's nation wide imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 Wouldn't a spacer be used in the bottom of the magazine to limit the amount of ammo? I somehow doubt that a spacer (which could be removed) is going to satisfy the requirements of this law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 Bad example? The action (murder/drunk driving) is already outlawed. This is just further restricting the implements. This is akin to saying that a person who is otherwise legally allowed to purchase alcohol and drink is only allowed to purchase certain kinds of liqour, or can only purchase two cans of beer at a time for personal use, etc. because some people might abuse alcohol and get in a car.Actually, our alcohol laws are a lot like that. In some states, you can't buy alcohol on Sundays or after 2AM. Some ban liquor from grocery stores. Sometimes you can only liquor from state-controlled stores. There are regulations on the sizes of bottles, and on the alcohol content of beer or wine. There are open container laws that apply to drivers, passengers, or pedestrians.If anything, alcohol is far more regulated than guns. We have a lot of rules about alcohol that punish good citizens who are just out for a good time because some people abuse alcohol and are a danger to others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsWarrior81 Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 I'm not sure how you think educating someone on how to use their weapon properly would decrease the chances of them using it to inflict harm. I do agree that lowering the value of contraband would make a huge difference in crime rates, although I'm not sure it relates to mass shootings.I do feel that the school related shootings are partly due to public schools having unhealthy students forced onto them. 20 years ago, you wouldn't have seen a lot of these types of students in the classroom setting. The "no child left behind" and other similar programs have taken unstable children who have special needs out of group homes, and special schools and put them into special ed programs and general classrooms of public schools all across the nation. Many of these schools are not equipped to deal with the special care of such individuals, and some of the students would lead a much happier, more productive life if they were given the special care we once determined they needed. ---------- Post added January-15th-2013 at 02:47 PM ---------- Are you saying sticking a wooden dowel or similar plug in the magazine would make it legal? I am a little unclear on the wording of what is and isn't going to be accepted as legal. I think the idea is that with a better educated society, you reduce accidental gun death and you bring younger people more up to snuff on gun safety and responsibility. Obviously that is not a short term answer to a hysteria over mass shootings. However, mass shootings are not really even relevant when you are trying to discuss reduction in overall gun crime. The overwhelming majority of gun crime is committed with illegal hand guns. The problem is a cultural one, not something that is just going to go away because NY passed a law one day. the answers are long term.. in one way you may have more freedom in the end and with the other way, you won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 Are you saying sticking a wooden dowel or similar plug in the magazine would make it legal? I am a little unclear on the wording of what is and isn't going to be accepted as legal. Dunno what they have in mind, I'm not a NY legislator, but magazines can be permanently modified, and or sold new that restrict the number of rounds in handguns that require magazines to fire. My shotgun came with a factory plug, it can be removed but if I did and was caught I'd lose my shotgun on the spot. ---------- Post added January-15th-2013 at 03:56 PM ---------- I somehow doubt that a spacer (which could be removed) is going to satisfy the requirements of this law. Factory spacers can be permanent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasefan31 Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 I feel bad for the upstate rural New Yorkers who are overlooked and outnumbered by the masses in their representation. I wonder how many thousands of rounds you could buy and shoot at the range before you get a knock on your door or your background check comes back as "do not sell". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaveFaith Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 How many times will we pretend that comparing cars and guns is realistic? I do realize that cars are not protected under the Bill of Rights, but think that people tend to get spun up on guns because they only see one side of it. More people die each year as a result of cars than they do by guns. I will note that cars are regulated... http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm Motor vehicle traffic deaths Number of deaths: 33,687 Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.9 All firearm deaths Number of deaths: 31,672 Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 I somehow doubt that a spacer (which could be removed) is going to satisfy the requirements of this law.Here is a more detailed article discussing that provision of the law: Magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds and manufactured before 1994, which are currently legal, would have to be turned over to authorities or sold out of state within one year. If a magazine has a capacity between eight and 10, it would have to be retrofitted to only hold seven rounds. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/14/cuomo-new-york-guns/1833271/Also, there is a provision regarding public records. The bill also includes several provisions pushed for by Senate Republicans, who have expressed a reluctance to bolstering New York's current assault weapons ban. Among them are a new felony for carrying a firearm on school grounds, as well as provisions allowing pistol-permit holders to request that their personal information be guarded from open-records requests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 Motor vehicle traffic deaths Number of deaths: 33,687 Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.9 All firearm deaths Number of deaths: 31,672 Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.3 Are those vehicular homicides? If not then you might have just as well described the color of the moon for the good it did to cite those numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsWarrior81 Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 I do realize that cars are not protected under the Bill of Rights, but think that people tend to get spun up on guns because they only see one side of it. More people die each year as a result of cars than they do by guns. I will note that cars are regulated... http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm Motor vehicle traffic deaths Number of deaths: 33,687 Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.9 All firearm deaths Number of deaths: 31,672 Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.3 I believe the totally number of unjustified homicides last year was ~8,000 - 8,300. If the overall firearm death amount is really that high, I would say a comprehensive and compulsory training and safety class would go a long way to stemming gun deaths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasefan31 Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 I love the new felony for carrying on school grounds. Why not make it even less likely that someone with the ability to stop such a horrific incident will be around when the time comes. WOW! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 I do realize that cars are not protected under the Bill of Rights, but think that people tend to get spun up on guns because they only see one side of it. More people die each year as a result of cars than they do by guns. I will note that cars are regulated... http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm Motor vehicle traffic deaths Number of deaths: 33,687 Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.9 All firearm deaths Number of deaths: 31,672 Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.3 As I said earlier, this is why we have seat belts and speed limits and other various driving laws. Or since they don't "work", should we just get rid of those too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stugein Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 Pretty sure moonshine is illegal. Actually, our alcohol laws are a lot like that. In some states, you can't buy alcohol on Sundays or after 2AM. Some ban liquor from grocery stores. Sometimes you can only liquor from state-controlled stores. There are regulations on the sizes of bottles, and on the alcohol content of beer or wine. There are open container laws that apply to drivers, passengers, or pedestrians.If anything, alcohol is far more regulated than guns. We have a lot of rules about alcohol that punish good citizens who are just out for a good time because some people abuse alcohol and are a danger to others. The laws with respect to the restriction on sales, quantities, retailers, moonshine, days you can buy etc. on alcohol are generally born from old religious standards, tax regulations, import regulations, or state income regulations. Not based on the potential for abuse. You can't not buy liquor on Sundays in an effort to prevent a drunk driver from plowing into a bus stop. Matt seemed to be intimating that laws further restricting gun ownership and purchasing were along the same lines of laws against drunk driving. I was simply pointing out that one is restricting the action while the other restricts ownership. Laws rightfully say drunk driving is illegal and there are penalties for violating such. But they don't have laws saying you can only keep 2 beers in your home at any time for personal use, or that you need to register your name with the state any time you buy more than one bottle of wine as a method to prevent drunk driving. Its the difference between policing the action versus the implement. ..I'm horrible at explaining thing..does this make sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 The laws with respect to the restriction on sales, quantities, retailers, moonshine, days you can buy etc. on alcohol are generally born from old religious standards, tax regulations, import regulations, or state income regulations. Not based on the potential for abuse. You can't not buy liquor on Sundays in an effort to prevent a drunk driver form plowing into a bus stop.Matt seemed to be intimating that laws further restricting gun ownership and purchasing were along the same lines of laws against drunk driving. I was simply pointing out that one is restricting the action while the other restricts ownership. Laws rightfully say drunk driving is illegal and there are penalties for violating such. But they don't have laws saying you can only keep 2 beers in your home at any time for personal use, or that you need to register your name with the state any time you buy more than one bottle of wine as a method to prevent drunk driving. Its the difference between policing the action versus the implement. ..I'm horrible at explaining thing..does this make sense? I see what you're saying, but I still stand by my original post. That people who want to drive drunk will continue to drive drunk, so why make laws that will hinder that? That was basically what the guy I quoted was saying about guns. That criminals are criminals for a reason and we can't stop them, so don't bother trying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stugein Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 I love the new felony for carrying on school grounds. Why not make it even less likely that someone with the ability to stop such a horrific incident will be around when the time comes. WOW! Yup. I'm sure that the violation of the "Gun Free Zone" rules and potential felony implications are foremost in the insane school shooter's mind when they decide to snap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsWarrior81 Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 I see what you're saying, but I still stand by my original post. That people who want to drive drunk will continue to drive drunk, so why make laws that will hinder that? That was basically what the guy I quoted was saying about guns. That criminals are criminals for a reason and we can't stop them, so don't bother trying. That is a bit different than cracking down on law abiding people who are being made to break current laws via new legislation. I don't think that there has been a time where gun crime was not looked down upon or aggressively pursued against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sticksboi05 Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 I love the new felony for carrying on school grounds. Why not make it even less likely that someone with the ability to stop such a horrific incident will be around when the time comes. WOW! I believe there was an armed guard at Columbine and at the school in California this past week. You want to use that argument, it's kind of ludicrous. Common sense would lead to the belief that law enforcement officers which these laws don't apply to should be present, more than one. We don't need to have kids running around in an environment with firearms making them think they are okay. Cause Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 I believe the totally number of unjustified homicides last year was ~8,000 - 8,300. If the overall firearm death amount is really that high, I would say a comprehensive and compulsory training and safety class would go a long way to stemming gun deaths.From his link, there were 11,078 firearm homicides in 2010. Most of the other deaths were suicides. There were 19,392 firearm suicides in 2010.http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sticksboi05 Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 I do realize that cars are not protected under the Bill of Rights, but think that people tend to get spun up on guns because they only see one side of it. More people die each year as a result of cars than they do by guns. I will note that cars are regulated... http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm Motor vehicle traffic deaths Number of deaths: 33,687 Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.9 All firearm deaths Number of deaths: 31,672 Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.3 These laws are to prevent purposeful deaths via firearm, not someone trying to do the right thing and being unable to aim. The regulation of the car industry is to limit the threat that human error has on the potential for accidental injuries and deaths. Apples and oranges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsWarrior81 Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 From his link, there were 11,078 firearm homicides in 2010. Most of the other deaths were suicides. There were 19,392 firearm suicides in 2010.http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm Yes. I forget the link, but 3,000 of the homicides were considered either law enforcement justified or victim justified. That said... including firearm suicide in the number is pretty bad data. Suicide is suicide.. it doesn't matter how it is done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 Yup. I'm sure that the violation of the "Gun Free Zone" rules and potential felony implications are foremost in the insane school shooter's mind when they decide to snap. Look an Army base didn't stand in the way of a mass shooter. Laws nor guns nor frickin' tanks stop people who are insane. You can't stop crazy. Laws don't pretend to stop crazy, you do stop gang members who carry on to school grounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 That is a bit different than cracking down on law abiding people who are being made to break current laws via new legislation. I don't think that there has been a time where gun crime was not looked down upon or aggressively pursued against. I'm sure there's people who can drive around perfectly fine with their BAC at .08. Yet it's been decided that anyone with a BAC .08 or more is driving drunk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.