Nissan XTerra Forum banner

New York Senate Passes Gun Control Measures

11K views 44 replies 18 participants last post by  robcarync 
#1 ·
This evening the New York senate by a vote of 43-18 passed gun control legislation that basically does the following.

Ban on all magazines over 7 rounds, no more new "assault weapons", all present assault weapons have to be registered and can only be at your home or a "registered range" (no such thing), all ammo has to be bought in person with a background check, all pistol permits have to be renewed.
A brief news story here. http://online.wsj.com/article/APac54f3a0b0244dc4b9de764b46ae5f73.html

Unfortunately this is what the nation may soon be looking at. Join the NRA or the SAF, to do your part to try and prevent this nation wide. If you're not a contributing member to one if not both of these groups you're part of the problem.
 
#4 · (Edited)
You ever go read an article on gun control...on CNN for instance....and read the user comments...wow there are some nut bags on there...from both sides of the issue.

I just don't see the point in the debate for gun control...being an engineer my brain likes root cause analysis and fixing the root issue. The availalability of an AR 15 "military grade" weapon (ha. ha.) is not the underlying cause of mass shootings or violence. Locking a gun up will not prevent mass shootings. Gun safes and locks are mainly to prevent 'accidents' from wandering people not knowing what they are doing. They generally will not keep a determined murderer from breaking in to them.

Nobody needs more than 7 bullets? I guess they have never heard of multiple attackers? Or if an attacker is wearing armor? Will police feel comfortable with the same restrictions they put on citizens?

I am all for some common sense type of stuff to keep guns out of the wrong hands...and to ensure that those that do have them know how to use them. I'd be OK with more in depth background checks...and consistent background checks for all purchases (NC requires a pistol purchase permit for any purchase whether a private sale or dealer...background check required to get permit from sheriff).

I think that real training to get a CCW (not a 30 bullet range test at 21 feet) would be awesome...more rigorous training similar to police or combat where you actually get a chance to simulate a struggle or intense situation. I passed my CCW with 100% on written and range test...but a stationary paper target isn't quite the same situation that you would potentially be needing CCW for. NC is an open carry state, and all you need is a 5 dollar pistol purchase permit from the sheriff's office...no training needed. Of course, this segment of the population isn't the problem, but I think most of us gun people would enjoy extra training like this, and could potentially make us safer as we protect ourselves.

Of course...guess what...I as a law abiding citizen will go through the hoops to legally own my firearms...the wacko wanting to murder a bunch of people...won't really care.

Sorry for my ramblings...I just find it interesting that all the gun control people are the people who don't know anything about them.

Treat the illness, not the symptom. And quit freaking newscasting these psychos 24/7...you give these pysychos what they want.
 
#5 ·
I Completely agree with Rob. In every instance where a shooting happens especially a mass shooting the news jumps all over the story and blows it up. Then shortly there after alot of paper pushers decide to limit/ban guns.

A Murder/Psycho will probably use anything that comes to hand and even if you are "required" to get a permit who says that will stop them.

Like my freind always said. "I have been sleeping with my gun at my bedside for 25 years and not once did it ever harm me."
 
#6 ·
So, "Assault Weapons" can only be legally used at your home or at a range? In my view, this doesn't stop somebody from using one to shoot others. Laws have never stopped criminals. If criminals followed the laws, they wouldn't be called criminals. In my view, the only way to fight somebody with a gun, is with a gun itself. Its kinda like the idea of a country having super weapons. Its a to deter the other countries from attacking them, in fear of a massive onslaught of retaliation.
 
#7 ·
Non law abiding citizens do not follow the law. Ie, they will find what ever means necessary to get what they want.

They don't put background checks on Home Depot pipe or garden fertilizer. You can buy a shit load of fireworks in SC from some random dude... WTF!!!




Sent from my iPhone using AutoGuide.com App
 
#8 ·
As tragic as these school shootings have been, it's absolutely true that banning guns isn't the answer to stopping maniacs from killing kids. How can this be true? We've seen it in other countries:

Chinese School Stabbings

Dozens of children have been killed in schools in China by terrible human beings with knives and cleavers. What do we do when that happens here? Bann dining utensils?

As it has been stated above, laws keep honest people honest and no more without adequate means to enforce them. Banning guns would keep guns out of the hands of those who would use them to defend themselves and their families but do nothing to stop those with mal intentions.

"No one hunts with an assault riffle, there's no reason for citizens to have one." As a country, citizens of the United States don't own assault rifles to hunt with in the first place. We own assault rifles because this country has a lot of really nice stuff. Resources and supplies that other countries would kill to have. What keeps this country safe is that all of those countries know that if they wanted what we have that not only would they have to deal with our country's defense force, and not only would they have to deal with our country's law enforcement, but that they'd also have to deal with every single armed citizen who's willing to stand up and protect their family from harm.
 
#9 · (Edited)
And what about the guy/kid who stabbed his dads girlfriend at their house, then drove to a college and shot his dad in the head with a bow and arrow? The father wrestled a bit with the kid to keep the students safe and allow them to get away, but the father ended up not making it and the kid who did all this killed himself with the knife.

I forget the name and the story, but you can find it on news.google.com

I think it happened in Montana at the end of last year?

Edit> Found it.. Casper College: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...mm-suicide-note-casper-college_n_2333902.html
 
#10 · (Edited)
Honestly, the only thing the governor of New York had in mind behind this new gun control measure was getting his name in the spotlight so he and the media can continue to dance on the graves of these innocent children. Not a single damn one of ANY of these politicians truly care about preventing future tragedies near as much as they do getting something on their resume to move on up the congressional ladder.

It makes me sick. Not one single foundation, charity group, or help/support center has been established by the government to help the surviving victims and families of those lost. Why? Because they see opportunity to move on their agenda and unfortunately they are going to trample on these very same people they plan to make the poster child of their agenda.

Chew on this:

Prior to 1989, there were only a handful of incidents in which two or more victims were killed by firearms at a school, including the 1966 University of Texas massacre, the 1974 Olean High School shooting, the 1976 California State University, Fullerton massacre, and the 1979 Cleveland Elementary School shooting (the 1927 Bath School disaster was a bombing, not a shooting, with a firearm used only to detonate explosives). School shootings prior to the late 1990s, when they received intensive press and official coverage, were considered local incidents and may be substantially underreported in current tabulations, raising questions as to whether school shootings are actually increasing or are simply receiving more attention in recent years. From 1989 to 2012, there have been at least 40 such incidents.

March 14th 1989: President George W. Bush bans the importation of weapons deemed "assault weapons".

Late 1980's/early 1990's: ISP's begin as start up companies to offer general public access to the ARPANET (then internet).

1990: ARPANET decommissioned and the "World Wide Web" is created with the first official web browser.

1991: Jeffrey Dahmer makes national/sensational headlines for his murders gaining unprecedented notoriety by the media.


1992: The video of Rodney King being beaten by the LAPD is released. Riots breakout following the trials/acquittals of the attackers.

1993: The "World Wide Web" goes public.
1993: Car bomb is detonated in the World Trade Center causing 1000's of casualties.
1993: David Koresh along with many of his followers as well as many LEO's are killed in assault on the Branch Davidian "compound" in Waco, Texas.

1995: Internet was fully commercialized and the NSFNET was decommissioned which removed all restrictions to carry commercial traffic.
1995: 168 people are murdered after a bombing at an Oklahoma City federal building.
1995: Yahoo and Ebay come online.

1996: A single gunman using multiple handguns, kills 16 children and one teacher in Dunblane, Scotland.
1996: The unabomber is arrested
1996: The Menendez brothers are convicted of killing their parents
1996: 35 killed and 19 injured when a gunman opens fire in a tourist area with an AR-15 in Australia. Australia later passes much stricter firearms regulations and restrictions.

*** From 1995 to 2007, crimes of assault in Australia have risen at 5% each year which is 4 times the growth rate of the Australian population. 42% of assaults were committed in their own homes.

*** Homicides involving firearms have seen little increase or decrease in trend since 1990.


I figure I will stop there and let you guys think about it. Tell me if you think gun control works or if there is something else that should be looked into.
 
#12 · (Edited)
THAT WAS AN AWESOME VIDEO LOL

I hate that when anyone suggests that "Gun Free Zones" should be eliminated....they (libs) freak out. "But the movies will then become like the OK Corral!" What they don't understand is that...nothing will change. Is the grocery store like the OK Corral? Is the sidewalk an OK Corral? There are people with CCW ALL AROUND and 99.999% of the time...NO ONE KNOWS IT!

The only gun free zones...should be where they will ENFORCE IT. Football games? OK...pat everyone down...Hockey games at our arena? OK...everyone goes through metal detectors and is patted down. I get it. If you have NO MEANS of enforcing a law, it is POINTLESS. It keeps NO ONE safe.

As far as assault weapons...being my experience in manufacturing quality control and statistical analysis...I look at the numbers. Statistically, there are FAR MORE people with assault weapons who NEVER commit crimes. There is NO statistical correlation to suggest that the availability is what causes these things. Gun owners in general commit crimes at a rate lower than average.

I read in an article about a PhD research psychologist that did profiles on mass school violence. Their data suggested that:

1) Most of these guys are VERY smart academically
2) Most of them are not "loners" by choice
3) Most of them WANTED to be accepted by their peers, but were rejected multiple times

What we have here is a CULTURAL problem. In schools, in society, we end up separated by social cliques and classes. There has been a cultural shift here where a lot of responsible positive traits are not valued by peers (academic success, responsibility, etc) Even in pop culture, and trickling down to schools, people value and respect dumb jocks, divas, prom queens, cheerleaders, football players who get drunk and rape girls while they are passed out etc. Steven Q Urkel never getting with Laura Winslow until he becomes "Stephon", nerds getting locked in lockers, etc. most of these shooters are bitter from being rejected for being different. They are smart, plan their attacks to kill as many people possible, are cold, and caculated. they make their own napalm and bomb boobie traps like a version of SAW movies. They know whats up and want to prove a point. They are not crazy, they know what they are doing is wrong...hence suicide to avoid being held responsible. They see bullies torment them daily and get away with it...this is their way to make a name for themself, be famous, and not have to deal with consequences.

Now, not to say bullies are 'responsible' per se for a shooters actions (many people get bullied, and instead go on to be a millionaire by the 10 year reunion), but a shift in values and an increase in parents teaching and enforcing tolerance would have a far larger impact than a "Gun Free Zone" sign.
 
#14 ·


Yankee Marshall on youtube...interesting and cool videos!
 
#16 ·
Now, not to say bullies are 'responsible' per se for a shooters actions (many people get bullied, and instead go on to be a millionaire by the 10 year reunion), but a shift in values and an increase in parents teaching and enforcing tolerance would have a far larger impact than a "Gun Free Zone" sign.
This quote makes bullying seem so nice. Another part of the problem.
 
#17 · (Edited)
1) I am not afraid of being attacked, even though I currently own zero firewarms. However, it does happen. There is a potential need for more than 7 bullets (though extremely rare). However, the biggest part that I disagree with is that there is no way to enforce this limit on people that want to commit crimes. These type of limits are reactionary, and don't address the root cause. What is the difference between the millions of people with 30 round magazines that NEVER commit a crime, and the very FEW that do? Focus needs to be on an organized and factual root cause analysis/design of experiments to identify risk factors, and how to determine who should pass a background check and who shouldn't. I am more for consistent restrictions on WHO can get things...not as much on WHAT.

I, as a non 'clinging to guns and religion' type of person, would gladly give up the right to a 30 round magazine if I, honest to God, thought it would actually have a measurable effect on gun violence.

2) I don't see how that makes bullying seem nice. Many people are bullied and don't shoot people. Many people take bullying or negative aspects of their life and use it for motivation to do positive things. Everyone is still responsible for their own actions, regardless of external factors.

I don't see myself being a problem, or anything that I have said. It all seems logical to me. If you have a logical dissenting opinion, I am always more than willing to listen/read...however stating that I have a problem for having a (presumably) different opinion is not appreciated.
 
#18 ·
This is part of your problem. So much fear.
I think you are getting fear and responsible preparation confused. If you have 3 gallons of gas in your X, would you drive 45 miles or go ahead and put gas in the truck before the 45 miles? If you were purchasing a piece of furniture that you had to trailer home, would you bring tie downs with you or hope that the furniture store sold more? What is the problem with being over prepared? If 4 men are threatening you or your family, would you feel better with 10 rounds or 7? I carry 14 in my gun when not in school. I hope to God that I never have to use all 1, much less all 14. However, I know if a situation arises, I have a much better chance of neutralizing a threat/multiple threats with what I keep loaded on a daily basis.

To leave with two great quotes:

When seconds matter, the police are only minutes away.

You may choose not to believe in God, that is your choice. You may choose to not carry a gun, that is your right. However, when someone is threatening you or your family, the first thing you are going to so is call someone with a gun, the second thing you are going to do is pray to God that they get there in time.

I will not be a victim.


Sent from my iPhone using AutoGuide.com Free App
 
#19 ·
I will not be a victim.


Sent from my iPhone using AutoGuide.com Free App

couldn't have said it better my self. i carry my gun and hope that i never have a reason to use it. by doing this i keep everyone around me safe. when i walk into a grocery store and i am carrying a my gun, that puts the odds a litter more in the favor of the innocent bystander. one armed civilian can and has stopped mass shootings. i refuse to be a victim.
 
#21 · (Edited)
What I don't understand is the fact that 'Representatives' are to vote in the majority decision of the people.

Why is it I hear more people are on the side of less gun control then for it!?

Our rights are being stomped on as part of their Political agendas. Who's with me in the revolution?
 
#22 ·
Considering how many people are killed in automobile accidents every day, I guess the next logical step is to take all our X's away, or govern their speed to about 10 mph so you can just bounce off stuff. Land of the Free. As a gun owner, I'm just trying to make light of a situation not trying to offend anyone.
 
#23 ·
We've talked about Slippery Slope before. It's the same reason why Tread Lightly is so important to us to keep off roading a legal and viable recreation. It's incredibly easy for people who don't care about something to agree with people who say it's bad and make it illegal for the people who do partake in it.

The problem is this is a very emotional debate. People are riled up and want someone or something to pay for horrible things that have happened. We as a people need to blame something. And for as "non-biased" as the media is, guns have been made the clear enemy of this campaign. All the major media networks make anyone who's opposed to gun reform look like a terrible human being. So how can a person who relies on public opinion to keep their job possibly take the stance that is going to be made to look evil? Now that the federal government is looking at passing legislations that will mirror New York's I worry that things really could be taking a serious negative turn.

What's needed is public awareness that media companies don't seem to be willing to provide. The NRA continues to be the big name fighting new gun laws, but they've been made out to be gun toting psychopaths preaching "guns don't kill people, people kill people," which, though may be accurate, has left a great number of people not caring about what they have to say.

I don't like being a fatalist, but one of my concerns is that if you look at history at other republics that came before the USA, their collapse derived from willingly giving up their rights because at the time they were made to believe that it was in their best interest to do so.

So my point in this long rant is that decisions like this need to be thought out and rationalized. Facts need to be researched, and potential outcomes need to be analyzed. Over the last decade our country has been making too many decisions based on fired up emotions and media attention. Do you remember what other government faction used to get their way by using the media to stir emotions in people to let them get away with what they were doing? They were called Nazis.
 
#24 ·
I read this earlier and I don't think there is any other factoid, statistic, or article out there that clearly exposes the complete lack of effectiveness of gun control (by means of weapons bans) as well as this does. The statistics he lays out couldn't be more cut and dried... and ignored by the media of course.

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/gun-control-laws-obama/2013/01/16/id/471670
 
#25 ·
For the sake of providing some non-biased data, let's consider the following statistics comparing eight OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries including the United States.


The per capita mortality from handguns in the USA is 4.6 times that of its closest contender, Israel; 23 times that of Canada, and 265 times that of Great Britain. Are Americans 23 times as homicidal by nature as Canadians, or 265 times as homicidal as Brits? Of course not. The factor that differentiates these societies is that handguns are very strictly regulated (and generally unavailable to civilians) in both Canada and Great Britain, whereas they are easily available in the USA.




Images and quote pulled from this blog post. Granted, it's an opinion piece but the statistics are impossible to ignore.

Flame on. :coolsun:
 
#26 ·
I appreciate the statistics, I respect people's opinions and admire anyone that actually looks up statistics rather than just saying blindly, "This is for the better good."

But...

There is a deeper statistic to consider.

You're looking at the mortality rate due to gun violence... but what if we looked at the murder rate per country?

List of Countries by International Homicide Rate

It becomes apparent on this list that the United States murder rate isn't nearly as bad as many MANY other countries that have heavily regulated gun laws. Take Mexico for instance. No one is allowed to own guns outside the government there, and their murder rate is 5 times that of the United States.

Do some countries with tough gun laws have a lower murder rate than the United States? Yes. But that's definitely not all there is to it. There are countries without these strict gun control laws with murder rates lower than the United States as well.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top