Notifications
Clear all

A Dose of Sanity From NY State Regarding Guns

18 Posts
6 Users
5 Likes
200 Views
robslob
(@robslob)
Famed Member
Topic starter
 

https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-signs-landmark-legislative-package-strengthen-gun-laws-and-protect-new-yorkers

Damn this is great news, to me anyway.  Greg Abbott, are you paying attention?

"I am proud to sign a comprehensive bill package that prohibits the sale of semiautomatic weapons to people under 21, bans body armor sales outside of people in select professions, closes critical gun law loopholes and strengthens our Red Flag Law to keep guns away from dangerous people—new measures that I believe will save lives."
 
-Governor Kathy Hochul
 
This topic was modified 2 months ago 2 times by robslob
 
Posted : June 7, 2022 1:10 am
PorkchopBob reacted
gotdrumz
(@gotdrumz)
Reputable Member
 

I don't know, maybe if New York enforced existing gun laws...  gun crime there is and has been off the rails forever and they have some of the strictest gun laws nationally already.

The shooters in both Buffalo and Uvalde were already on law enforcement radar, so there is that. Major red flags there, why did they pass through the cracks?  Interestingly enough, Each shooter happened to check off a lot of the boxes in the current gun grabbing agenda, rhetoric, and media talking points.  In example, AR15, age, mental health issues, ect.  The coincidences are quite interesting.

If you knew anything about body armor, it isn't some super duper bullet proof costume like  protrayed in the movies. Mass, inertia, and velocity limit it's effectiveness, It actually was purposed to protect against shrapnel from an IED, not a high velocity projectile from a firearm.  Isn't it odd that the specifics in the legislation are geared towards things that can potect an individual and their family from large numbers of people. Be it a riotous mob or an occupation by a trynnical government? 

I don't understand the logic of raising the age to 21. If it has validity, then raise the age the same to vote, get drafted, buy a home, get credit, drive, get charged as an adult for crime, and enter into a contract. The list goes on.  Statistics  do not merit such action and if it is a maturity thing. Then apply it to the other things I mentioned above.  You shouldn't take away the ability of the many to have a choice due to the stupidity of so few.    Cherry picking specifics to push a political agenda at the cost of civil liberties is a fucked up solution. 

Most people are programmed to reeact on their emotions.  Failing to see anything else that might be going on cause of hurt feelings, guilt from what others have done, or just get perpetually angry over crap they have no control over.  It is funny and it is scary at the same time.

As far as "common sense" gun laws goes.  Who defines that term?  It means something different to everybody.  Should we allow the same government that is currently robbing us blind, lying about everything,  and murdering men, woman, and children worldwide through regime change and proxy wars for the sake of profit and/or control to have the final say so?  IMHO, nope.     

Some correlation.... The UK banned handguns in 1997 and the homiciide rate there increased; Look up mass shootings by country per capita; Take these 5 cities from the statistics (New York, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, and Baltimore) and the USA drops out of the top 100 for gun violence in the world; And some interesting facts about those 5 cities are they have some of the strictest gun laws in America, they have been ran by the same political party for decades, and currently their District Attorneys advocate for or currently pratice no bail for violent and repeat offenders, defunding the police, and all have seen crime rates skyrocket due to the policies of the leadership that is telling everyone they have "common sense legislation".

Mileage may vary of course. 

 

 
Posted : June 7, 2022 5:11 pm
PorkchopBob
(@porkchopbob)
Famed Member
 

@gotdrumz 

I always hate the term "common sense", it's a passive aggressive way to disregard someone else as "senseless".

Raising the minimum age to purchase semi-automatic weapons seems reasonable to me. Many states already have this law, however, AR15s were considered "rifles" and therefor still available to 18 year-olds. I get that the ages of 16-21 seem nebulous, but if beer is considered too dangerous then so should semiautomatic weapons. They can still purchase handguns and rifles. It might not keep AR15s out of the house if Dad buys one, but I'm ok if it prevents a troubled teen from buying one on the day of his 18th birthday. Personally, I'd like to see more screening, training, and licensing. I think the US has developed an irresponsible relationship with firearms and the NRA has its heels dug in too deep to turn that ship around. Responsible education - for both gun owners and gun control advocates - could go a long way in breaking down the emotional response and creating a real dialogue on the topic.

I actually think banning the body armor to the general public is the best part of the bill. Regardless if it's completely bullet-proof, it's being used by mass shooters as such. Whether they are dressing the part or it's a placebo effect, better to take it off the table. Either it has no use for the public or it's making shooters feel bullet proof and empowering them.

It's important to look at these stats per capita and not just their totals. If you removed NYC, Chicago, LA from just about any stat, the US would fall in world rankings - that's 5% of the US's population. If you look at stats per capita, NYC and LA fall out of the top 20, and Chicago falls all the way to #9. Tulsa, Jacksonville, even Anchorage had higher gun deaths per capita than NYC in 2020 (Source: https://www.thetrace.org/2018/04/highest-murder-rates-us-cities-list/ ). Strict gun laws are not failing, and the reality is NYC police would be taking their pensions in droves if you relaxed gun laws in such a crowded urban area.

We can't solve the problem if we don't look at the cause and effect. And let's be honest - isolated urban gang violence is different from indiscriminate mass shootings. Yes, dead by a gun is dead and ends up in the same column. But the intent, purpose, and acquisition of weapons is not the same. Keeping illegal weapons out of the hands of poor urban teens in blighted areas is different from keeping legally purchased weapons out of the hands of troubled, hate-filled young adults. There are laws that are enforced every day for the former, I think the latter needs a different approach.

PorkchopBob Studio

 
Posted : June 7, 2022 6:25 pm
robslob reacted
Chain
(@chain)
Noble Member
 

Good discussion all around....As a New York State resident and gun owner, I think this new legislation is a good step toward restricting the purchase of not only certain types of guns, but also the purchase of not only body armor, but even more dangerous in the wrong hands, bullet proof vests....

Imagine a school resource officer with a 9mm glock confronting an intruder armed with an assault weapon and several high capacity magazines dressed to the teeth with a bullet proof vest and body armor?  

This legislation also, if enforced at the point of purchase, disallows some guns from being categorized as “other weapons” in order to circumvent current gun laws.

One other thing I think the feds need to immediately implement is a process to collect accurate data on gun deaths. If we truly want to address this problem, we need accurate data.  There has been tremendous effort from the NRA and others to prevent such data from being collected much less considered when drafting gun laws.

 
Posted : June 8, 2022 4:13 pm
robslob reacted
gotdrumz
(@gotdrumz)
Reputable Member
 

(IMHO) if you have to explain why you need a gun or what kind of gun you need.  You have lost any and all justification in debate.

The U.S Constitution states, "shall not be infringed".   Any and all changes to that MUST be ratified by 3/4 of the states. PERIOD

On a side note... Most US Government agencies have different defintions for what an "assualt" rifle is and/or isn't.  Why is that?

 
Posted : June 14, 2022 5:41 pm
PorkchopBob
(@porkchopbob)
Famed Member
 
Posted by: @gotdrumz

(IMHO) if you have to explain why you need a gun or what kind of gun you need.  You have lost any and all justification in debate.

The U.S Constitution states, "shall not be infringed".   Any and all changes to that MUST be ratified by 3/4 of the states. PERIOD

Not exactly since the 2nd Amendment states for what purpose. So a firearm that doesn't serve the purpose of "security of a free state" and rather endangers other freedoms (pursuit of life and liberty, etc) can be "regulated".

PorkchopBob Studio

 
Posted : June 14, 2022 7:19 pm
gotdrumz
(@gotdrumz)
Reputable Member
 

@porkchopbob

 "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

 The Constitution in principle and intent gives power to the individual state. So a militia, set up for the security of a free state is regulated by said free state. If the right of the people to keep and bear arms was inclusive to a well regulated militia, it would have stated just that. In context, as well as grammatically correct, they are separate things.

Your endangers others freedoms (life,liberty, and pursuit of happiness) is a stretch, being they are all very subjective things.  Me having a gun, doesn't endanger your personal freedom, does it. 

 
Posted : June 15, 2022 2:50 pm
PorkchopBob
(@porkchopbob)
Famed Member
 

@gotdrumz 

Right, grammatically it states the right's purpose "being" necessary for a "well regulated militia". Not an unregulated militia, which is of greater threat to the state's security (even if they can barely stumble out of a U-Haul).

So if the weapon's purpose is only mass carnage, it possibly endangers personal freedoms (such as assembly). We limit speech when it is a greater danger to public safety without infringing nor voiding the right. So if the weapon's purpose is not protected, the type weapon can be regulated (such as full- and semi-automatic weapons).

Regardless, I believe more scrutiny at the point of sale would be more effective. Waiting a week isn't an infringement on eventual ownership.

PorkchopBob Studio

 
Posted : June 15, 2022 3:27 pm
gotdrumz
(@gotdrumz)
Reputable Member
 
Posted by: @porkchopbob

@gotdrumz 

Right, grammatically it states the right's purpose "being" necessary for a "well regulated militia". Not an unregulated militia, which is of greater threat to the state's security (even if they can barely stumble out of a U-Haul).

So if the weapon's purpose is only mass carnage, it possibly endangers personal freedoms (such as assembly). We limit speech when it is a greater danger to public safety without infringing nor voiding the right. So if the weapon's purpose is not protected, the type weapon can be regulated (such as full- and semi-automatic weapons).

Regardless, I believe more scrutiny at the point of sale would be more effective. Waiting a week isn't an infringement on eventual ownership.

It is disapointing that you make it a "left" or "right" thing, much less bring up the UHaul incident.   Neither have anything to do wih what I'm saying and just feeds into that "Us versus Them" mentality that is basically a distraction that never solves anything.

Not to mention, there is this grammar thing regarding the Second Amnedment that is crucial to what it is and what it isn't.  The defintions of "well regulated" and 'shall not be infringed" are contradictory.  Makes it difficult to not seperate one from the other.

There are numerous things that endanger personal freedoms (such as assembly) aside from a weapon (regardless of it's purpose). Freedom of assembly caused dozens of deaths and billions of dollars in insurance claims during the protests/riots of 2020.  Anyone can "cherry pick" to prove a point, looking at the overall picture and how it effects the right & liberties of the indivual is what matters most of all.  Without that our Constitutional Republic is a train wreck waiting to happen.

Yelling "fire" in a theater is much different than regulating a person's ability to protect their family from an angry mob of dozens with a revovlver or limited capacity magazine.  A Colt 45 and an AR15 fire still only fire a round ata time. 

Scrutiny at point of sale has both merit and flaw (IMHO).   It only effects the law abiding citizens.   Which goes back to my opinion of why limit what non-criminals can/can't do when there is a tonz of failure enforcing existing gun laws, not to mention, weak follow through in charging and/or prosecuting those that commit violent crime.   Yes, not all violent crime is gun releated. Yet, statistics show that fear of not being held accountable emboldens criminals and the types of crimes committed escalates. It is happening in a lot of places across our country.  So if existing laws are not adhered to by the criminal element, much less, those elected or appointed to uphold said laws.  What purpose (aside from chipping away at gun possession period) will more laws accomplish/

 
Posted : June 16, 2022 3:50 pm
PorkchopBob
(@porkchopbob)
Famed Member
 
Posted by: @gotdrumz

It is disapointing that you make it a "left" or "right" thing, much less bring up the UHaul incident.   Neither have anything to do wih what I'm saying and just feeds into that "Us versus Them" mentality that is basically a distraction that never solves anything.

I didn't say anything about right or left. I brought up an example of an unregulated militia that isn't protected, I didn't cite their politics. You did that to distract from the point I made. We've been having a cordial discussion.

Not to mention, there is this grammar thing regarding the Second Amnedment that is crucial to what it is and what it isn't.  The defintions of "well regulated" and 'shall not be infringed" are contradictory.  Makes it difficult to not seperate one from the other.

If they are contradictory, then they are open to interpretation by judges and lawmakers as guns and laws evolve over time. However, the "right" to bear arms has not been infringed, however, how and what kind of firearms has been regulated. I don't see the contradiction.

There are numerous things that endanger personal freedoms (such as assembly) aside from a weapon (regardless of it's purpose). Freedom of assembly caused dozens of deaths and billions of dollars in insurance claims during the protests/riots of 2020.  Anyone can "cherry pick" to prove a point, looking at the overall picture and how it effects the right & liberties of the indivual is what matters most of all.  Without that our Constitutional Republic is a train wreck waiting to happen.

Yelling "fire" in a theater is much different than regulating a person's ability to protect their family from an angry mob of dozens with a revovlver or limited capacity magazine.  A Colt 45 and an AR15 fire still only fire a round ata time. 

An AR15 might only fire a round at a time, but it's still holds more ammo, is more accurate, and fires more rapidly than a colt 45. And far more innocent mobs of people have been on the other end of AR15s than have been a family defending themselves. Looking at real world application, rather than hypothetical scenarios, is the only way to solve real problems.

Scrutiny at point of sale has both merit and flaw (IMHO).   It only effects the law abiding citizens.   Which goes back to my opinion of why limit what non-criminals can/can't do when there is a tonz of failure enforcing existing gun laws, not to mention, weak follow through in charging and/or prosecuting those that commit violent crime.   Yes, not all violent crime is gun releated. Yet, statistics show that fear of not being held accountable emboldens criminals and the types of crimes committed escalates. It is happening in a lot of places across our country.  So if existing laws are not adhered to by the criminal element, much less, those elected or appointed to uphold said laws.  What purpose (aside from chipping away at gun possession period) will more laws accomplish/

Enforcement is key, but I don't see how it detrimentally affects law-abiding citizens. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban still allowed the legal purchase of firearms. And just because criminal break the law, doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to enforce laws that are meant to keep the public safe. There are examples in other countries where this has statistically decreased gun violence.

PorkchopBob Studio

 
Posted : June 16, 2022 4:48 pm
gotdrumz
(@gotdrumz)
Reputable Member
 
Posted by: @porkchopbob

I didn't say anything about right or left.

whatever man. here is your verbiage, "which is of greater threat to the state's security (even if they can barely stumble out of a U-Haul)." WTF is that refrencing? 

Then you say this, "An AR15 might only fire a round at a time, but it's still holds more ammo, is more accurate, and fires more rapidly than a colt 45. And far more innocent mobs of people have been on the other end of AR15s than have been a family defending themselves. Looking at real world application, rather than hypothetical scenarios, is the only way to solve real problems."

Statistically, more deaths are due to hand guns than an AR15. Death rate is what matters, right?   From my experience (real world application), I can fire 6 rounds from a revolver just as quick as from a 5 round clip in my AR15.  I have other firing platforms that fire the same rounds and recieve the same clips as an AR15.  Where is the outrage for those firearms.  It is clear you repeat what what others say and more than likely have never fired a gun, nuch less an AR15.  As far as the hypothetical scenarios... why didn't you call out Chain for posting this, "Imagine a school resource officer with a 9mm glock confronting an intruder armed with an assault weapon and several high capacity magazines dressed to the teeth with a bullet proof vest and body armor?"  I get it, he cosigns your agenda, belief system, or whatever.  

And finally (LOL), you posted the following, "Enforcement is key, but I don't see how it detrimentally affects law-abiding citizens"

Criminal don't adhre to any gun control laws. I can get any type of mility weapon I desire on the black market.  A law abiding citizen should be able to purchase what he deems necesary to defend his family and propety. If ther is a change, do it by ratification by 3/4 odf the states as our Constitution dictated.  PERIOD.

 
Posted : June 17, 2022 12:00 am
robslob
(@robslob)
Famed Member
Topic starter
 

@gotdrumz:  Here's something regarding the AR-15 that you don't address and I don't see that any others who advocate for sales of AR-15's ever address:  The infatuation of a LUNATIC with an AR-15.  It LOOKS just like a machine gun, something you might see in a 1920's or 30's gangster film.  I'm not worried about what YOU are going to do with an AR-15...........you seem like a fairly rational person.  I'm worried about the reasons why an unstable individual wants to get their hands on one.  And for my money that is reason enough to ban them.  If we don't do something we are just waiting for the next Uvalde to happen.

This post was modified 2 months ago by robslob
 
Posted : June 17, 2022 12:00 pm
PorkchopBob reacted
PorkchopBob
(@porkchopbob)
Famed Member
 
Posted by: @gotdrumz
Posted by: @porkchopbob

I didn't say anything about right or left.

whatever man. here is your verbiage, "which is of greater threat to the state's security (even if they can barely stumble out of a U-Haul)." WTF is that refrencing? 

I clearly stated "I brought up an example of an unregulated militia that isn't protected, I didn't cite their politics." They are bigots and idiots and a threat to a public assembly. Their politics are irrelevant and specific of neither the right nor the left. I don't consider them representatives of the GOP. It's a real world application, like it or not.

Statistically, more deaths are due to hand guns than an AR15. Death rate is what matters, right? From my experience (real world application), I can fire 6 rounds from a revolver just as quick as from a 5 round clip in my AR15. I have other firing platforms that fire the same rounds and recieve the same clips as an AR15. Where is the outrage for those firearms. It is clear you repeat what what others say and more than likely have never fired a gun, nuch less an AR15.

But we are talking about mass shootings here and I clearly stated they are a unique problem compared to urban gang violence that uses illegal hand guns. And yes, I have fired a gun before, though I admit I am not an expert. That's why I'm all for an open discourse on the matter, which I think we are still having, right? Both sides should be educated on the matter and I'm happy to hear your expertise.

The Uvalde shooter had 30-round magazines. A glock holds 15, but possibly up to 30, correct? Isn't an AR15 still more accurate since it's a rifle? So if a revolver is just as effective, who needs an AR15?

As far as the hypothetical scenarios... why didn't you call out Chain for posting this, "Imagine a school resource officer with a 9mm glock confronting an intruder armed with an assault weapon and several high capacity magazines dressed to the teeth with a bullet proof vest and body armor?" I get it, he cosigns your agenda, belief system, or whatever.

I didn't realize I'm supposed to address everyone's opinion, and my only agenda is discourse.

In application near me in Parkland FL, an armed security officer did nothing while a student killed 17 people with an AR15 within 4 minutes. In Uvalde, a responding school security guard chased a teacher he erroneously thought was the shooter. Responding armed officers waited over an hour to confront an armed and armored gunman who had already killed over 20 people. In Sante Fe TX, officers stationed at the school and a responding highway patrolman engaged the gunman after he killed 10 people in 4 minutes.

So, armed security can help mitigate the carnage if it responds. But it's not a deterrent and in almost every case multiple external responding officers are necessary to engage a shooter that Chain references. I'm interested in finding solutions to stopping the shooter before they slaughter people.

Criminal don't adhre to any gun control laws. I can get any type of mility weapon I desire on the black market. A law abiding citizen should be able to purchase what he deems necesary to defend his family and propety. If ther is a change, do it by ratification by 3/4 odf the states as our Constitution dictated. PERIOD.

Firearms are legally available to law-abiding citizens who can use them to defend their families. An AR15 doesn't really fit under your pillow or in the night stand, maybe a handgun is more reasonable? The people who are storming homes in large numbers are the police or SWAT teams. If you are going to sleep with an AR15 by your bed in the event that your house is going to be raided by multiple armed intruders, maybe you're not a law-abiding citizen.

Also, many things are available on the black market (drugs, military weapons, elephant tusks, pangolins, kidnapped children) that's not an argument for not regulating them. That's an argument for more diligent enforcement.

Hey, obviously it's not as cut and dry as gun control advocates want it to be. Most everyone agrees that law-abiding citizens should be able to own firearms for sport and protection, that's completely reasonable (and in the constitution). And gun control advocates should know more about guns if they want to regulate them. Guns are protected, but there's a strange fetishization of guns by some over the past 30 years in this country that is unhealthy. I think it's important to take a closer look at how these kids are legally acquiring such deadly weapons.

PorkchopBob Studio

 
Posted : June 17, 2022 2:45 pm
robslob reacted
PorkchopBob
(@porkchopbob)
Famed Member
 

@robslob

It's become the weapon of choice in these incidents, partly because it's developed that pedigree since Columbine (during which period it was illegal). But I think it's worth investigating why an AR15 and not a glock.

PorkchopBob Studio

 
Posted : June 17, 2022 2:53 pm
Stephen
(@stephen)
Famed Member
 

It has been & will be discussed to bits & pieces, but, on this most American of holidays, with news laws having recently been passed instigated by the Uvalde school shooting -

....this mass shooting near Chicago proves, once again, that nothing will ever change except for the predictable pap trotted out by politicians & NRA types

"this is a terrible tragedy"

"we must tighten laws"

"we must ban automatic weapons..........."

as long as people want guns, they'll be made, and continue to fall into the wrong hands

 
Posted : July 4, 2022 8:01 pm
Stephen
(@stephen)
Famed Member
 

Gary Indiana, Haltom TX.........

the kid who did the Highland Park shooting was known to police, yet made multiple gun purchases while planning his rampage - typical one of these mass shooters, young kid, quiet, kept to himself, an oddball but no one thought he was capable of mass murder..............

don't blame the politicians - political legislation, laws written on paper, will never prevent mass shootings - not as long as the NRA is around & firearms are as readily available as they are - heck shots were even fired at an Oakland A's game

 
Posted : July 6, 2022 3:05 pm
Bill_Graham
(@bill_graham)
Noble Member
 

In addition to the accuracy and clip round count there is no comparison when it comes to the damage to the human body when shot with an AR15 compared to a 9mm round.

The AR15 shot creates massive tissue damage compared to the 9mm.

Check out the 60 minutes video

 
Posted : July 6, 2022 6:47 pm
Stephen
(@stephen)
Famed Member
 

the south side of Chicago is the baddest part of town - Jim Croce

50 years later, same thing -

Stung by the irony of seeing so much publicity and concern about the shooting in affluent Highland Park, a minister from a South Side church said the violence there is horrific & needs similar investigation

June was a particularly bad month, the minister saying he buried four men under the age of 21, murder victims, over the course of a week

There were nearly 800 murders in Chicago in 2021, article said - the most in a quarter century

In the recent Independence Day wknd there - 10 killed, 62 wounded by gunfire - it's not just Chicago, gun violence is prevalent in Many places - & a lot doesn't get reported

At least in some countries people care about this stuff - thousands were in attendance at a public memorial for the mass shooting in a Danish mall recently - music was played, people came from other countries

Us Americans can't be bothered, we're blase about the whole thing - we've become what the late great Phil Ochs envisioned - when it comes to mass shootings, we "smile & shrug our shoulders at the murder of a man"

This post was modified 1 month ago by Stephen
 
Posted : July 7, 2022 3:23 pm
Share: