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

[DjTj]

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.

The "Gun Free School Zone" is not intended to prevent a mass shooter. It is to keep gang and drug-related gun violence away from schools so that innocent students don't get caught in the crossfire. Not every law is supposed to stop the next Newtown. The vast majority of gun violence is not part of a mass shooting.

For the special case of mass shootings, it is true that it will be difficult to really pass a law that stops someone determined to carry out a horrific act like that. We can try to pass laws that can mitigate the damage, like limiting magazine capacities or implementing waiting periods so that a shooter cannot accumulate a large number of guns or ammunition in a short time. We can hire more security guards for our schools. We can improve our mental health system so dangerous people are identified.

Just because a certain law fails to address the mass shooter issue doesn't mean that it is ineffective at addressing other sources of gun violence.

[Larry]

I somehow doubt that a spacer (which could be removed) is going to satisfy the requirements of this law.

Yeah, I realize it's an assumption, but I'm making the same assumption as you.

As I understand it, the magazine plug in a shotgun can be removed, without any tools whatsoever, in less than a minute.

Somehow, I don't think that's what this law allows.

[chasefan31]

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

Columbine had an armed guard NORMALLY, but he/she was not present when the shootings began. Any trained individual with a firearm on the site would at the very least require all of the shooter's attention for a brief period of time, decreasing the time they have to engage those who have no defense.

[DjTj]

Columbine had an armed guard NORMALLY, but he/she was not present when the shootings began. Any trained individual with a firearm on the site would at the very least require all of the shooter's attention for a brief period of time, decreasing the time they have to engage those who have no defense.

Actually, he was eating lunch in the parking lot. He fired four shots at one of the Columbine shooters, and he likely did save lives by engaging the shooter's attention for that time.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/columbine.cd/Pages/DEPUTIES_TEXT.htm

[Stugein]

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.

I don't think anyone is saying don't try or that something doesn't need to be done. At least me personally I'm not saying that. I'm saying that placing further restrictions on the law abiding does not prevent the unlawful from taking action. I doubt there has ever been a school shooter who has seen a posted "Gun Free Zone" sign, stopped, and said "Woah, guess I can't go through with it.". No gang member has hit the brakes right before a drive-by, looked in the back seat and said "Hang on guys, I think we have too many bullets in these magazines, let's go play Xbox instead".

I think measures should be taken to make sure that guns don't get into the wrong hands in the first place. Proper, safe gun storage. Safety courses. Cutting down on straw purchases. More education and awareness of mental health warning signs, and more availability of care and treatment to families with at-risk members. But placing more restrictions on lawful, safe and responsible gun owners doesn't save anyone.

[Popeman38]

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.

SUICIDE. That accounts majority (55%) of firearm deaths each year.

[MattFancy]

I don't think anyone is saying don't try or that something doesn't need to be done. At least me personally I'm not saying that. I'm saying that placing further restrictions on the law abiding does not prevent the unlawful from taking action. I doubt there has ever been a school shooter who has seen a posted "Gun Free Zone" sign, stopped, and said "Woah, guess I can't go through with it.". No gang member has hit the brakes right before a drive-by, looked in the back seat and said "Hang on guys, I think we have too many bullets in these magazines, let's go play Xbox instead".

I think measures should be taken to make sure that guns don't get into the wrong hands in the first place. Proper, safe gun storage. Safety courses. Cutting down on straw purchases. More education and awareness of mental health warning signs, and more availability of care and treatment to families with at-risk members. But placing more restrictions on lawful, safe and responsible gun owners doesn't save anyone.

Those are definitely valid points. Unfortunately, they have to start somewhere. Do I think these laws will make a difference? No clue. But at least they are trying and not just standing by and letting this happen again.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I don't think anyone is saying don't try or that something doesn't need to be done. At least me personally I'm not saying that. I'm saying that placing further restrictions on the law abiding does not prevent the unlawful from taking action. I doubt there has ever been a school shooter who has seen a posted "Gun Free Zone" sign, stopped, and said "Woah, guess I can't go through with it.". No gang member has hit the brakes right before a drive-by, looked in the back seat and said "Hang on guys, I think we have too many bullets in these magazines, let's go play Xbox instead".

I think measures should be taken to make sure that guns don't get into the wrong hands in the first place. Proper, safe gun storage. Safety courses. Cutting down on straw purchases. More education and awareness of mental health warning signs, and more availability of care and treatment to families with at-risk members. But placing more restrictions on lawful, safe and responsible gun owners doesn't save anyone.

So what is your recommendation? Please, I'd like to see some actual proposals.

[SkinsWarrior81]

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.

Drinking booze is not a constitutional right.

[Stugein]

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.

Gang members that are either underage or otherwise don't legally own the firearm they are carrying anyway. They could be prosecuted under any number of laws that say them having that gun in the first place is illegal. Make the penalties for THOSE laws higher if you need to, IMO.

[MattFancy]

Drinking booze is not a constitutional right.

21st Amendment

[DjTj]

I don't think anyone is saying don't try or that something doesn't need to be done. At least me personally I'm not saying that. I'm saying that placing further restrictions on the law abiding does not prevent the unlawful from taking action. I doubt there has ever been a school shooter who has seen a posted "Gun Free Zone" sign, stopped, and said "Woah, guess I can't go through with it.". No gang member has hit the brakes right before a drive-by, looked in the back seat and said "Hang on guys, I think we have too many bullets in these magazines, let's go play Xbox instead".

I bet there have been instances where gang members are aware of the gun free school zones, decide to conduct their business somewhere else, and when shooting breaks out, no schoolchildren are around. I also bet there have been instances where criminals rob a home or a gun store and end up with 10-round magazines rather than 30-round magazines because of the restrictions.

You can think up hypothetical situations where the laws won't make a difference, but I can think of situations where they will. Who is ultimately right? We can try to perform studies and make our best estimates, but at the end of the day, the democratic process in each state is going to arrive at rules that think are the best for them.

[SkinsWarrior81]

21st Amendment

I stand corrected in part. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-first_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The States have ultimate say on liquor laws.

[DjTj]

SUICIDE. That accounts majority (55%) of firearm deaths each year.

That statistic really makes me pause when thinking about owning a gun and having it in the home. It's basically twice as likely that someone in the house will commit suicide using the gun than having someone come into the house and commit murder using a gun.

[chasefan31]

Actually, he was eating lunch in the parking lot. He fired four shots at one of the Columbine shooters, and he likely did save lives by engaging the shooter's attention for that time.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/columbine.cd/Pages/DEPUTIES_TEXT.htm

That's why I said when the shootings began. I'm not sure guards all over would help in all situations. I do have a problem with the fact that many banks and major companies employ armed guards to protect their assets, which are locked in nearly unbreakable vaults. Surely they wouldn't do such a thing if it didn't deter robberies. I understand thieves aren't as crazy as murderers, just throwing it out for discussion.

[SkinsWarrior81]

That statistic really makes me pause when thinking about owning a gun and having it in the home. It's basically twice as likely that someone in the house will commit suicide using the gun than having someone come into the house and commit murder using a gun.

2 times more likely to shoot themselves than hang themselves from your shower curtain rod. The implement used in suicide is irrelevant.

[TradeTheBeal!]

States' Rights in action.

Post of the day.

[DjTj]

2 times more likely to shoot themselves than hang themselves from your shower curtain rod. The implement used in suicide is irrelevant.

My shower curtain rod doesn't support my body weight, and I'd rather hear the crash of someone falling into the tub, and be able to get them help, than hear the sound of a gunshot and not have a second chance. A gun is far more effective as a killing implement than other methods.

In 2002, more than 30,000 Americans killed themselves, with just over half using a gun.

Firearms are used in only 5 percent of attempts, the study said, even though, with a 90 percent fatality rate, they cause more than half the deaths. So even a small decline in the number of attempts involving guns could mean many fewer deaths, the researchers said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/17/health/17risk.html?_r=0

Across the Northeast, case fatality rates ranged from over 90% for firearms to under 5% for drug overdoses, cutting and piercing (the most common methods of attempted suicide). Hospital workers rarely see the type of suicide (firearm suicide) that is most likely to end in death.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/

[HeluCopter29]

I think there is something to be said that states rights are a better idea here then a national thing.

Guns are just a bigger problem in more dense areas. New York State needs gun laws more then say, Montana may.

[Stugein]

So what is your recommendation? Please, I'd like to see some actual proposals.

I think measures should be taken to make sure that guns don't get into the wrong hands in the first place. Proper, safe gun storage. Safety courses. Cutting down on straw purchases. More education and awareness of mental health warning signs, and more availability of care and treatment to families with at-risk members. But placing more restrictions on lawful, safe and responsible gun owners doesn't save anyone.

• 
  I said I agreed with the New York proposal for misdemeanor charges for people who don't store their guns safely. Proper storage helps to prevent both theft and accidental shooting by minors

• I support mandatory safety and marksmanship courses as a prerequisite to firearm ownership with renewal every 3-5 years.

• Stricter penalties for existing laws, and removal of judicial sentencing discretion when a violent crime is committed with a gun (maximum allowable penalty).

• Same-sentence laws put into place for straw purchasers whose gun is used in a crime.

• Public employees should receive more and better training (I honestly don't know what exists now) for recognizing warning signs of psychiatric issues and identifying at-risk individuals so that they can get help

• There should be a free or low cost avenue for families to obtain professional psychiatric advice or evaluations if they believe they have an at-risk family member.

That's not a comprehensive list, and I certainly wouldn't purport to have all the answers. I just think that we'd be better served by doing more to keep the guns out of the wrong peoples' hands and getting help for those sick individuals and their families who might not have anywhere to turn than by placing further restrictions on lawful, responsible firearm owners who aren't the problem.

[autoidiodyssey]

Are the guns that "evil people" use for mass murder different from the guns that "good people" use for self-defense? To perpetrate a mass murder, an automatic or semiautomatic rifle with a high-capacity drum is probably the most effective weapon. To stop a murderer, a shotgun might be best or a concealed handgun that the attacker can't see. Or a well-placed sniper round.

A lot of people are pointing out inconveniences that this law will cause for gun owners. But I don't see anyone pointing out a need for the guns that are being banned.

The deadliest shooting in U.S. history, Virginia Tech, was committed with 9mm and .22 caliber handguns. So based on history the "most effective weapon" is a semi automatic handgun. They are easier to handle, easier to reload and at point blank range essentially as lethal as a rifle.

According to the FBI in 2011 309 people were killed with rifles. Now that is all types of rifles not just "assault weapons". In comparison 717 people were killed with "Hands, fists, feet, etc.". Specifically in New York, 5 people were killed with rifles last year.

The truth is that these types of weapons are rarely used in crimes. If you were a criminal and were going to commit a crime with a firearm would you use a handgun that you could slip into your waistband, or a 30 inch long rifle?

The worst part of this New York law, and it is really hard to pick one part as the worst, is the 7 round magazine capacity. That is an arbitrary number that makes no sense. Most states with capacity laws limit it to 10, including New York. So most manufacturers have 10 round magazines available for their guns, no one has 7s. New York has a 10 round limit and now they are going to 7. It is just nonsense. How many of the 445 firearms related murders in New York last year came from bullets 8, 9, or 10?

The number of gun deaths decreased during the previous national AWB. And when it was set to expire there were cries far and wide that blood would flow in the streets and gun deaths would go up. Yet they continued to drop. The previous ban did nothing to reduce crime, any new bans will do nothing to reduce crime.

[Jumbo]

Now that is unfair. Just because you are not outwardly a gun advocate (that I have seen) doesn't mean that firearms and ammunition registration is not a pretty slippery slope for rights erosion.

Also - Walther P22 for zombies.. super awesome.

This gets back to other things I have intimated in reference to your analyses ---I have posted of my lifelong love of guns (and bow and knives) many many times in here over the years (first rifle @ 12, first handgun @ 18), including frequently in the last few months. You step your game up, boyo.

And I've had the Walther for over 18 months and it gets a bad rap from some for it's bulk but I like it. My buddy just got a sweet deal on the Sig 522 10" barrel. In any Apocalypse, 22lr's will rule.

[DaGoonie55]

- Ammunition magazines would be restricted to seven bullets, from the current 10, and current owners of higher-capacity magazines would have a year to sell them out of state. An owner caught at home with eight or more bullets in a magazine could face a misdemeanor charge.

7 bullets? Really? This is too low imo. This has nothing to do with "assault rifles" or anything of the sort. Even standard handgun magazines hold 8-10 in many basic cases. This is going to make magazines owned by (assuming) most legal firearms owners in NY illegal. Unless I'm reading this wrong (always possible), its going to outlaw way more than I'm comfortable with.

So basically, if I understand this right, the sales of 10 rd magazines is illegal and citizens should sell them off out of state. BUT, if you have a 10 rd magazine, if you have more than 8 rounds in said magazine - it is a misdemeanor. So keep your standard mags, put 9 in the mag, slide one in the tube - you're legal with 8 rds in the magazine?

Otherwise, how do you get 8 rds in a mag that holds 7? LOL

I say its a good move. Especially the part about the mental health aspect. The only part that would aggrivate me is choosing which accessory I have to discard from my AR. Pistol grip or collapsible stock. Man I'm glad I don't live there, but given Washington (state's) recent history of bandwagon jumping - I may move to North Dakota.

[DjTj]

So basically, if I understand this right, the sales of 10 rd magazines is illegal and citizens should sell them off out of state. BUT, if you have a 10 rd magazine, if you have more than 8 rounds in said magazine - it is a misdemeanor. So keep your standard mags, put 9 in the mag, slide one in the tube - you're legal with 8 rds in the magazine?

Otherwise, how do you get 8 rds in a mag that holds 7? LOL

That is not correct. I think the law says that magazines larger than 10 rounds have to be sold out of state. Magazines that hold from 8-10 rounds will have to be modified, but you're only going to be charged (with a misdemeanor) if they find 8 or more rounds in your unmodified magazine.

I think going from 10 rounds to 7 rounds is the least meaningful part of the law, but I think when you break it down, they are soft-pedaling it to the point where the punishments are going to be relatively minor.

The deadliest shooting in U.S. history, Virginia Tech, was committed with 9mm and .22 caliber handguns. So based on history the "most effective weapon" is a semi automatic handgun. They are easier to handle, easier to reload and at point blank range essentially as lethal as a rifle.

This is why many states (including New York) have mandatory registration for handguns. Handguns are generally regulated more strictly than rifles, except for assault rifles.

According to the FBI in 2011 309 people were killed with rifles. Now that is all types of rifles not just "assault weapons". In comparison 717 people were killed with "Hands, fists, feet, etc.". Specifically in New York, 5 people were killed with rifles last year.

I think that the average hunting rifle is probably among the least dangerous guns from a criminal standpoint.

The number of gun deaths decreased during the previous national AWB. And when it was set to expire there were cries far and wide that blood would flow in the streets and gun deaths would go up. Yet they continued to drop. The previous ban did nothing to reduce crime, any new bans will do nothing to reduce crime.

I understand the arguments that these laws may not make that much difference. And I hear the slippery slope argument. And I get that this will inconvenience those who already own guns. But still nobody has told me why it's absolutely necessary to be able to buy one of the guns that will be banned by this law. Why do you need a banned assault weapon?

[Larry]

I said I agreed with the New York proposal for misdemeanor charges for people who don't store their guns safely. Proper storage helps to prevent both theft and accidental shooting by minors

I like the theory.

I strongly suspect that it's completely unenforceable, though. Only time it will ever come up is after something bad has happened.

Like, after this latest school shooting, does it really help to file misdemeanor charges against the woman whose guns were used?

I think that, if it would truly result in people being more responsible with their legally-owned guns, it would be a great thing. But I only see it being invoked after something bad has happened.