world

New York passes 1st U.S. gun control bill since Newtown massacre

64 Comments
By MICHAEL VIRTANEN

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

64 Comments
Login to comment

Just making it harder for the law abiding gun owners, wont even affect the criminal or mentally ill...

-4 ( +8 / -12 )

I'd like to see every one of these politicians line up to FIRST turn in or register any and all weapons possessed by them AND their bodyguards. Let's see these hypocrites do that FIRST.

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

Great! Take guns away from NYPD today! If criminals can't have these weapons anymore, the cops won't need guns either, right? Crime is going to go away now, right? Idiots.

-8 ( +4 / -12 )

I'd like to see every one of these politicians line up to FIRST turn in or register any and all weapons possessed by them AND their bodyguards.

1) Are you suggesting any of the NY politicians or their bodyguards have not registered their weapons?

2) Why and how could anyone have any problem with weapons needing to be registered?

5 ( +8 / -3 )

Herve: "I'd like to see every one of these politicians line up to FIRST turn in or register any and all weapons possessed by them AND their bodyguards. Let's see these hypocrites do that FIRST."

Why would any law-abiding citizens be against strict registry?

Anyway, good on NY! Here's hoping more states follow, and eventually nation-wide legislature is passed. The hick states will resist, but that's to be expected.

3 ( +9 / -6 )

If criminals can't have these weapons anymore, the cops won't need guns either, right? Crime is going to go away now, right?

Why the need for such simplicity? Police are there to protect the public. So, I see no problem with police having the best equipment to do this. No one said this would erase crime. What is wrong with wanting to attempt to lower the rate though? How could anyone want things to stay as they are there? Don't you get tired of reading headlines of people shooting up malls, schools and movie theaters full of innocent people?

2 ( +6 / -4 )

This move has to be considered all the more remarkable since, if I'm not mistaken, New York state has the largest rural population (in total number, not as a percent of the total) of all 50 states. It will almost certainly feed NRA hysteria.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Starting a War on Guns may seem like a simple and logical thing, but let's look at recent history for some guidance. We have the War on Drugs, and that has pretty much failed. The prohibition on some drugs has put millions behind bars and the cops are more heavily armed and militarized every year. We have the domestic War on Terror, and all that got us was groping by the junior gestapo at the airport. We did have the War on Alcohol, better known as Prohibition, which gave rise to notorious gangs, black markets and yes, the first federal gun control laws.

At least somebody had the sense to call that one off. It's nearly impossible to stop one of these great wars once it gets started.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Good job NY, just making it much more of an @$$ pain for law abiding citizens to protect themselves. You guys still fail at preventing criminals fromgetting them. Im gonna sit back and watch your crime wave rise.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

The problem with a knee jerk reaction is that it is almost always based on hysteria and not on a thoughtful analysis of the situation. How will banning pistol grips on rifles make them any less lethal?

Why not regulate the color of the gun? That would make about as much sense.

And why the seven round limit? Is there some kind evidence to support the validity of that restriction, or is it just that it is less than ten?

Sometimes doing anything to give the impression that you are do something, just ends up making you look foolish.

But that being said, I guess we should congratulate Gov. Cuomo on winning the “Capitalizing on someone else’s tragedy to promote your personal agenda sweepstakes”. He certainly deserves it.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

THE ONLY QUESTION ABOUT GUN REGISTRATION

Only one thing is overlooked in the common sense proposals to register guns, so here it is. How exactly would writing down my name, or your name, help arrest criminals or make you safer? Although at first blush, gun listing has a sort of tantalizing appeal, on reflection you have to wonder whether gun lists would be an instrument of crime control at all.

The unfortunate answer is that, no matter how good it feels when the words first pass your ears, registering honest gun owners doesn't stop criminals, and in fact focuses in exactly the opposite direction. It is an allocation of resources that has no chance of achieving its goal, if that goal is the reduction of crime.

Registering 70 million American households is extremely expensive.

Do you know what it takes to run a database that big? You need 19,000 changes daily, just to keep up with people who move every ten years. Floor after floor of cubicle after cubicle for employees with permanent jobs, payroll, parking and dry cleaning bills. It's a federal jobs program all by itself, all in the common sense -- but deceptive name -- of stopping crime. How many criminals do you figure will register when all is said and done? That's right, none, and the planners know that. All that money and time, invested on tracking the innocent.

Americans who fail to register would become felons without committing a crime.

Under registration, activity that is a common practice and has been perfectly legal since inception makes you a felon. Think about that. Possession of private property would subject you to felony arrest, if the property isn't on the government's master list. Boy, that doesn't sound like the American way. No other evil is needed, there is no victim and no inherent criminal act takes place.

Registration, if enacted, will create an underground market for unregistered guns bigger than the drug trade.

How many times must an elite forbid what the public wants, before learning the unintended consequences of outlawing liberties? People get what they want either way, it's just a question of how much crime the government itself forces to accompany it. With respect to guns, the last thing you want to encourage is the creative import programs and price supports that drug dealers enjoy, for

People have said to me, "But, if all guns were registered and there was a crime, then you could tell."

Tell what? If your neighbor is shot, that's not probable cause to search everyone with a matching caliber in a ten-block radius. The evidence needed to conclusively link a person to a crime has no connection at all to a registration plan -- police aren't waiting for official lists so they can start catching murderers. Gun registration schemes lack a crime prevention component.

You don't really think authorities would use gun registration lists to confiscate weapons from people, do

Despite current examples of exactly that in New York and California, and global history for the past century, this couldn't really happen, do you think? Who would even support such a thing in a country like America, with its Bill of Rights? The guarantees against confiscating property, unwarranted seizures and the right to keep and bear arms would surely forestall any such abuse of power.

And what about the so-called First Amendment test? If it's OK for arms it must pass muster for words too. Why would an honest writer object to being on the government list of approved writers? Why indeed.

Pile logic on logic, some people just feel the government should register everything, just to keep control. When government has that much control, you no longer possess your liberties. You're living where government lists define who can do what, and where people control trumps crime control -- the gun registration model precisely.

I might favor registration if the system would include criminals. In fact, I'd favor testing the system on them first. But the U.S. Supreme Court, in a widely known case (Haynes v. U.S., 1968), has already determined that a felon who has a gun cannot be compelled to complete such forms, because it violates the Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination. That's right, registration -- not in your case of course but in the case of a criminal -- is a self-indictment of a crime, and is therefore prohibited.

Gun listing is a feel-good deception that passes unquestioned by the media, engorges the federal bureaucracy, and undercuts the linchpins of American freedoms. It has no more place in a free society than a government authorized list of words, and should be rejected outright. Elected officials who promote such a scheme are opposing the very Constitution they take an oath to preserve, protect and defend, and deserve to be removed from office.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Private sales of assault weapons to someone other than an immediate family will be subject to a background check through a dealer. New Yorkers also would be barred from buying assault weapons over the Internet, and failing to safely store a weapon could lead to a misdemeanor charge.

Anyone have a problem with this?

Another provision places requirements on therapists, psychologists, registered nurses and licensed social workers who believe a mental health patient made a credible threat to use a gun illegally. They would be required to report such a threat to a mental health director, who would have to notify the state. Any registered handguns — or registered assault weapons purchased before the ban — could be taken from the patient.

Anyone have a problem with this?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Liberals are always crying about illegal guns in the streets but when police officers implement stop and frisk the liberals are always the first to call the cops racists. Liberals aren't going after the illegal guns, they want to harm us legal gun owners.

RR

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

they want to harm us legal gun owners.

The Newtown case is one of a legal gun owner's guns killing lots of innocent children and adults. It is not the only one recently, far from it.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Anyone have a problem with this?

I guess so. Many seem to decry not being able to sell assault weapons to anyone they want to, the heck with what might happen afterward. Many seem to decry not being able to have anyone with a keyboard and internet access from buying assault weapons over the Internet. Lastly, why should mental health patients with gripes against people not have the right to keep their handguns and assault weapons? What ever could happen?

Sorry, I just do not understand people clinging to their guns to the point where they cannot see that this is a reasonable bill.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

And why the seven round limit?

You have to start somewhere. There have to be limits, don't you think? Should it be unlimited?

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Americans who fail to register would become felons without committing a crime.

I don't follow your thinking. Not following the law would in fact be a crime. So, Americans who fail to register would become felons because of committing a crime. Just like not paying your taxes is a crime.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

The liberals are always crying about illegal guns in the streets but when police officers implement stop and frisk the liberals are always the first to call the cops racists.

I believe the police are for gun control for the most part. I understand their reasoning.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Gun control bill does not kill anyone. Gun violence crime kill countless people. Although it is just a small step, it is encouraging.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Good on NY!! Down with the bad, bad EVIL NRA!

0 ( +3 / -3 )

You know, NY is a place where one cannot defend themselves against violent criminals. In NY if a thief broke into your home and if you were to bring him down with a simple kitchen Knife, you would probably still be charged with some sort of humans rights violation. There actually one case where a guy lost his job because he did not comply with "official compliance" when he took vigilante action and restrained an armed bank thief.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

This is absolutely a 'show' to please the angry crowds! The fundamental problem is too many angry Americans behaving too violences and bad tempered INSTEAD too many guns! There were 200000000 guns at least, who knows who is going to use it in anger?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The fundamental problem is too many angry Americans behaving too violences and bad tempered INSTEAD too many guns!

Lemme get this straight. You think there are too many angry Americans with bad tempers behaving violently and you don't think there is a fundamental problem with "200000000 guns" being available to them? I am having trouble with your fundamentals.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

You think there are too many angry Americans with bad tempers behaving violently and you don't think there is a fundamental problem with "200000000 guns" being available to them?

According to actual real statistics the amount of guns available in the U.S hasn't made an increase in crime at all, quite the opposite.

US crime rate at lowest point in decades. Why America is safer now.

The last time the crime rate for serious crime – murder, rape, robbery, assault – fell to these levels, gasoline cost 29 cents a gallon and the average income for a working American was $5,807.

That was 1963.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0109/US-crime-rate-at-lowest-point-in-decades.-Why-America-is-safer-now

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

A fair and reasonable law. Only extremists on both sides would have any objections.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Seven bullets instead of ten...

I don't think this part of the law will have much effect either way, but gun rights activists will cry foul.

I think any semi-automatic rifle should fit within the assault rifle ban unless it only holds like four bullets. You only need one or two bullets hunting and most hunting law limit you from having more than four or five bullets in a rifle.

If you are talking home defense, then get a pistol. A rifle is too long to be used for defense of a home.

I used to be on a rifle marksmanship team. We only shot one bullet at a time, and we were pretty damn good. So, I don't respect the opinion that a reduced magazine reduces your ability to practice. It certainly doesn't reduce the opportunity to hunt. As mentioned above, I don't think a rifle does much for home defense.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

The legislation also increases sentences for gun crimes

Back in the 80's & 90's during the "crack wars" going on in many areas in the US, there was a move to make the sentencing of those involved in the trade of crack stricter as a deterrent measure. It was done, and the sentencing laws for crack cocaine are stricter than for powdered concaine. As a result, more Black males were seeing longer prison time for possession of smaller amounts of crack as opposed to whites who were more likely to use powdered cocaine.

I think that the same unintended consequences will happen in regards to this part of the NY lawa as what happened with the increased sentencing for crack cocaine. The majority of the gun violence crimes committed in places like NYC are being dong by young Black and Hispanic males, and when they get caught, they will fall under the provisions of this law and see longer sentences. All this will do will just make those race hustlers like Sharpton, Jackson, etc, have something to protest about and keep them in the money, but not really do anything to solve the issue of people who should not have a gun use a gun to commit a crime.

I am all favor for making those who use a gun in the commission of a crime pay a longer sentence, but I think that the NY legislature didn't really think this one out. I can see this may backfire on them in the future, and we will be right back to where we are now.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Regardless of the focus, whether it be guns or freedom of speech, practice of religion, peaceable assembly, whatever, "reasonableness" is not the measure to be applied when mucking about with constitutional issues - of any country, at any time in history.

There are two big problems with "reasonableness" in this context: it is highly subjective, changeable over time, and prone to manipulation; and it is always the rationale heard as people tumble down the slippery slope to losing their freedoms - proven by history time & time again.

No matter how one feels about a particular issue, when constitutionally vouchsafed freedoms are eroded due to one group or another's ideas of "reasonableness" this is a huge warning signal, klaxons going off, flags all over the field - history rearing its head. Where a few freedoms here or there are "reasonably" infringed, more infringements are on the way.

Reasonableness has a very honorable place in legislature and law for any and all matters not directly impinging on freedoms. Reasonable punishment; reasonable compensation; reasonable expectation; reasonable adjudication, etc. Juries are always asked to assess based on reasonableness - fine. Not so much when it comes to freedoms.

It doesn't matter if one is liberal or conservative; it doesn't matter if one is pro or con; what matters is how healthy constitutionally safeguarded freedoms are, and we should all - wherever we live - be concerned and alert.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why would any law-abiding citizens be against strict registry?

Primary reason is to protect themselves against gun confiscation through a retroactive ban. There was nothing in the bill that stated it would be illegal for the gun registry to be used for gun confiscation in a retroactive ban. Second reason is that they are not effective in preventing gun crime or solving gun crime and thirdly they are extremely expensive Canada proves the 2nd and 3rd points when they removed the long gun registry.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The NY governor has a 74% approval rating, 68% Republican approval, with only 13% disapproval.

It seems he's doing better service to people than the U.S. Congress or President.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

US crime rate at lowest point in decades.

Yes for single murders, but mass murders seem to be on the rise. That's not such a great trend.

Mass murders are on the rise. This New York Times article researched the frequency of mass murders. It found during the 20th century there were about one to two mass murders per decade until 1980. Then for no apparent reason they spiked, with nine during the 1980s and 11 in the 1990s. Since the year 2000 there have been at least 26, including the massacre in Aurora, Colorado.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/reading-between-the-headlines/201207/mass-murders-are-the-rise

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/24/opinion/brooks-more-treatment-programs.html?_r=3&src=recg&

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's a nice step in the right direction. It brings to mind a famous quote by the late great Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.:

“The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”

While instituting a comprehensive ban on all guns in America may seem like a pipe dream, fighting guns with more guns is totally ludicrous. This bill sounds better than the NRA's solution of putting more armed guards in schools and arming teachers with guns. More violence is not the answer to fight violence. Period!

3 ( +4 / -1 )

What is wrong with wanting to attempt to lower the rate though? How could anyone want things to stay as they are there? Don't you get tired of reading headlines of people shooting up malls, schools and movie theaters full of innocent people

Because the rate is already lowering. Since 2007 gun violence as a grand total has dropped by 15%. Gun crime is going down, since 1993 it has been cut in half. You act is if no progress has been made on gun crime.

Anyone have a problem with this?

I have a problem with it, it doesn't include background checks when transferring the gun to an immediate family member. Hello Adam? Plus a lot of gang members get their guns from family members being straw buyers for them.

For the mental health confiscation, it doesn't state if the mental health patient gets their gun back and magazine and or clips back when they finish treatment and are not longer considered a threat to the public or themselves.

You have to start somewhere. There have to be limits, don't you think? Should it be unlimited?

They already did slum dog, they started several years stating 10 round magazines were largest you could purchase, now it is seven rounds. Why 7? Why is 10 no longer acceptable?

If you are talking home defense, then get a pistol. A rifle is too long to be used for defense of a home.

Rofl, do you have any idea the proper stance for holding a hand gun? You are suppose to basically extend the arms out all the way in front of you when holding a hand gun(isosceles stance or the weaver stance). So I take it you consider shotguns to be too long for use in home defense? Curious but what are you basing this idea that rifles are too long to be used for home defense on? Soldiers clearly had no problem using their rifles in iraqi and afghani houses that is for sure. Why do swat teams storm houses in the US using M16s? Do you think they are making a tactical mistake using such a firearm? Combat in a house invasion the vast majority of time doesn't not take place with the victim and criminal facing each other on either side of the hall way, if it is in a hall it is them engaging in combat with one at one and the other at the other end of the hallway. Besides you can always use a rifle caliber carbine.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Yes for single murders, but mass murders seem to be on the rise. That's not such a great trend.

Slumdog,

Your first link is to an article by a Dr. Dale Archer I would assume a Psychologist as the the link is to an article in Psychology Today magazine. I would not consider him an expert on the subject.

Your second link is to an Opinion piece by David Brooks. Mr. Brooks is also not an expert on the subject and just is expressing a layman's opinion on the subject.

I prefer the opinoons of those that are considered to be experts in the field of crime and have made it their life's work to study crime and the trends and causes of criminal behavior. Such as was this report by the left leaning Huffington Post.

Mass Shootings Not On The Rise, But Their Impact Is Huge

"There is no pattern, there is no increase," says criminologist James Allen Fox of Boston's Northeastern University, who has been studying the subject since the 1980s, spurred by a rash of mass shootings in post offices.

The random mass shootings that get the most media attention are the rarest, Fox says. Most people who die of bullet wounds knew the identity of their killer.

Grant Duwe, a criminologist with the Minnesota Department of Corrections who has written a history of mass murders in America, said that while mass shootings rose between the 1960s and the 1990s, they actually dropped in the 2000s. And mass killings actually reached their peak in 1929, according to his data. He estimates that there were 32 in the 1980s, 42 in the 1990s and 26 in the first decade of the century.

Chances of being killed in a mass shooting, he says, are probably no greater than being struck by lightning.

Still, he understands the public perception – and extensive media coverage – when mass shootings occur in places like malls and schools. "There is this feeling that could have been me. It makes it so much more frightening."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/15/mass-shootings-not-on-the-rise_n_2308493.html

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Yes for single murders, but mass murders seem to be on the rise. That's not such a great trend.

@ slumdog: Recently a well known gun maker in OR died in a traffic accident, but before he died he wrote a piece on the link between mass killings and drug usage. He lists 41 cases of mass murder (some didn't involve shooting but beating and stabbings), and the perscription drugs that they were on. Take a look at the article for yourself, and see if these regulations will really do anything.

http://www.examiner.com/article/gun-maker-wrote-about-link-between-drugs-and-shootings-days-before-his-death?cid=rss

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Noliving

Curious but what are you basing this idea that rifles are too long to be used for home defense on? Soldiers clearly had no problem using their rifles in iraqi and afghani houses that is for sure. Why do swat teams storm houses in the US using M16s?

Um they don't! Most police tactical teams, military special forces etc use a shortened version of the M-4 (the m-4a1 or Mk-18 cqbr) which is about 10 inches shorter than the standard m-4 / ar-15. But don't feel bad its a common mistake :-)

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Your first link is to an article by a Dr. Dale Archer I would assume a Psychologist as the the link is to an article in Psychology Today magazine. I would not consider him an expert on the subject.

Your second link is to an Opinion piece by David Brooks. Mr. Brooks is also not an expert on the subject and just is expressing a layman's opinion on the subject.

Experts or not, do you disagree with this figure?

Since the year 2000 there have been at least 26, including the massacre in Aurora, Colorado.

If you disagree, what are your figures? Is it my imagination that I hear about these case of mass murder often?

Do you disagree that these mass murders have occured?

Since 1982, there have been at least 62 mass shootings* across the country, with the killings unfolding in 30 states from Massachusetts to Hawaii. Twenty-five of these mass shootings have occurred since 2006, and seven of them took place in 2012. We've mapped them below, including details on the shooters' identities, the types of weapons they used, and the number of victims they injured and killed.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map?page=2

Looking at the mass shootings map in the link above, I certainly remember them being reported. In this case, you might not like the people reporting it, but what they are reporting are facts.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

He lists 41 cases of mass murder (some didn't involve shooting but beating and stabbings), and the perscription drugs that they were on.

Do you think the mass shooters in the list would have happened if the people did not have access to the weapons?

People often have side effects from medications. Without access to guns, the side effects do not tend to lead to mass deaths as a result of bullets.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

He lists 41 cases of mass murder

Suicides, while extremely sad, do not count as 'mass murder'.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is a public health thing. If you choose to live in Kodiak Alaska, you might be healthier with a gun or two. If you chose to live in a NY villiage, perhaps it is not the healthy thing to have easy access.

Thieves in the US look for 1) money; 2) jewelry/drugs/valuables; and 3) guns. Wolves and bears in Kodiak might respect your 2nd Amendment rights. Thieves do not.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I suppose it's a step in the right direction - a baby-step, but a step all the same.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Because the rate is already lowering. Since 2007 gun violence as a grand total has dropped by 15%.

Then if the homicide rate is going down and you're less likely to die from a gun than in a car accident, then you don't really need to have a gun to protect yourself from a gun in the first place. Thus, a ban on guns won't hurt anyone. Don't see why gun owners feel the need for a gun to protect themselves from a crime that is lowering and is less likely to happen to them from say a car accident.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Looking at the mass shootings map in the link above, I certainly remember them being reported. In this case, you might not like the people reporting it, but what they are reporting are facts.

MotherJones is not reporting facts. MotherJones is a far left publication with an agenda and they are publishing totally debunked garbage. The folks at Mathematical Malpractice Watch wasn't impressed to say the least.

One of things we’ve learned here at Mathematical Malpractice Watch is that these incidents are very rarely a result of accident or ignorance. They are usually a result of someone trying to massage the data to reach a conclusion that it can not support when analyzed objectively. The simple fact is that crime and gun violence are down, way down. I’m not completely sold on the “more guns, less crime” hypothesis but it is very difficult to argue — when you take all the data — that our guns laws are creating massacres. When you look at all the data, you have a thousand times the raw number of deaths and injuries Mother Jones is analyzing.

That is something you can draw conclusions from.

But .. Mother Jones massaged the data until they got the conclusion they wanted. That’s not just standard political b*st. That’s an organized and delibate deception.

http://michaelsiegel.net/?p=5506

0 ( +1 / -1 )

One problelm with these gun laws is that they are not FEDERAL, so NY gets tough, but the crappy states surrounding NY like Conn. etc..very relaxed gun laws, and any fool can buy guns outside of NY then use them or RESELL them in NY to gangs etc..time to get tough FEDERAL GUN LAWS in every state of the USA and DC too!

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Registration, if enacted, will create an underground market for unregistered guns bigger than the drug trade. How many times must an elite forbid what the public wants, before learning the unintended consequences of outlawing liberties? People get what they want either way, it's just a question of how much crime the government itself forces to accompany it. With respect to guns, the last thing you want to encourage is the creative import programs and price supports that drug dealers enjoy, for

Where would these unregistered guns come from? Are there cheap guns made in China? I don't know since I pretty much know nothing about guns.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Your contention that mass shootings are on the rise in the U.S. They're not. 2012 is tragic, but mass shootings not increasing, experts say

From your article:

some experts say they are happening not much more often than usual.

'Some experts', not all experts. The Mother Jones information is in your article as well. For some reason, you have chosen to ignore it:

This year has been especially bloody, though. According to a running tally by Mother Jones magazine, whose counts slightly differ -- the magazine excluded robberies and gang violence, to some criticism, and limited the tally to public attacks -- 2012 has been the deadliest year for mass shootings since 1982 by far, with almost 80 dead.

I am not sure how you can ignore the carnage in the last year in the US. The rest of the world can see. It seems lots more Americans are able to see it clearly now, too. Hopefully, it translates into less people killed in the years to come. I certainly can't see how continuing on the same path will be any good for the future of the people in the US.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Has anyone been reading the news these years? It reports the world (I mean around the world) is generally a safer place...with or without guns. There was even a report that crime is going down in Japan. Without guns and without a great economy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pretty much all your first world countries, their crime rates are dropping. 3rd world countries? Who knows, when they don't really do a good job tracking it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Didn't chose to ignore it at all. If you'll notice in the article that I linked to that they also have a link included in the paragraph with the Mother Jones info the "some criticism", highlight in the article is a link that goes directly to Mathematical Malpractice Watch which I cited earlier. It's how I found out how really off the rails Mother Jones was with their article and how badly they skewed the data to suit their biased gun control agenda.

I am not sure how you can ignore the carnage in the last year in the US.

I'm hardly ignoring it at all. I want to know if this is a trend and really is something getting out of control or is this Media hype and activist type reporting disguising itself as objective reporting. Facts over the years based on real statistics show violent crime is down to levels unheard of in decades in the U.S and this is with a huge population growth during this time frame. With regards to mass killings, stats that haven't been falsely manipulated like Mother Jones did, show mass killing sprees as atrocious and vile and shocking as they are have not been increasing over the years in the U.S but have more or less remained at a pretty constant level with peaks and valleys over the past few decades.

This tells me that kneejerk gun control laws and regulation is not what is needed or required right now, there is no national crises to pass bad legislation to deal with a rampant problem. One would think the U.S would have learned after all the laws passed after 9/11 as to how crappy laws are when passed in the heat of the moment.

Balanced well thought out regulation to ensure that those who are law abiding that wish to own guns can own guns without even more extreme excessive burdensome regulation piled on coupled with better laws to prevent those who should never be allowed a weapon such as those with mental issues is what we need.

Laws such as this one New York just jammed through in less than one month after Sandy Hook and passed hastily and really not fully vetted by those who you really would want their input and expertise while crafting the new law is going to do exactly the things that Alpha is pointing out in that it will have unintended consequences. I prefer smart well thought out laws and not cobbled together kneejerk reactions that tend to makes things worse in the long run not really better.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The average pace was about 20 mass murders per year

Lovely.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Good for dear old New York. It does not go far enough. There are always bothersome questions. Law abiding citizens can become law breaking citizens. Anyone can become mentally ill under the wrong circumstances. Guns ought to be hard to get and automatic weapons nearly impossible.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

"Another provision places requirements on therapists, psychologists, registered nurses and licensed social workers who believe a mental health patient made a credible threat to use a gun illegally. They would be required to report such a threat to a mental health director, who would have to notify the state."

So much for doctor-patient confidentiality.... What about the guy that tells his psychologist that he fantisizes about bombing up a mall, or going on a rampage with a sword, or driving his car through a playground? Aren't those equally credible threats?

Once someone gets the instructions for building a bomb similar to the ones used daily in Afghanistan, Iraq & Pakistan, a 7 vs 10 round magazine isn't going to seem like such a critical difference.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Why would any law-abiding citizens be against strict registry?

Because the system is already flawed and has the potential for rampant abuse. Piss off the wrong person in city government and the cops review all your documents to make sure you crossed your t's or they take all of your firearms. I've had that happen with my vehicle before after I lodged a complaint against an officer that accosted me at the bar.

Private sales of assault weapons to someone other than an immediate family will be subject to a background check through a dealer. New Yorkers also would be barred from buying assault weapons over the Internet, and failing to safely store a weapon could lead to a misdemeanor charge.

Anyone have a problem with this?

Assault weapons are an aesthetic term and shouldn't be legislated just because a politician doesn't like the term. I have a pistol that is technically an assault weapon because it has a muzzle break, an addition to reduce recoil. I bought it off of my friend and considering every background check I get back these days is an incorrect denial I don't feel that I should have to add a trip to the federal building in Detroit to my list of hassles to prove to them I'm not a 60 year old man in Atlanta Georgia.

Another provision places requirements on therapists, psychologists, registered nurses and licensed social workers who believe a mental health patient made a credible threat to use a gun illegally. They would be required to report such a threat to a mental health director, who would have to notify the state. Any registered handguns — or registered assault weapons purchased before the ban — could be taken from the patient.

Anyone have a problem with this?

Given how little proclivity the government has for getting another opinion on the matter this could be easily abused and would likely be a difficult charge to fight. If it happened to me who is going to take my word against a professional, especially when that professional says that I'm mentally ill. It would also give the mentally ill incentive to illegally purchase weapons and would be a disincentive to individuals who already own guns from seeking help for their own mental conditions. If your a collector you may have invested tens of thousands of dollars in the activity, if your depressed or if you've developed a drug habit you're trying to beat it's already hard to seek help without the added threat of having a massive investment stripped from you.

Why the need for such simplicity? Police are there to protect the public.

Multiple court cases have shown that the police have no legal responsibility to act in the defense of individual citizens or to stop crimes in progress. They are obligated to respond to calls and investigate crimes that have occurred but not in any established timeline or order. 70% of the murders in my home town of Detroit are never solved and police response to 'shots fired' can be up to 30 minutes. I had a man attempt to break into my garage and vehicle fairly recently, I called the police first and only after that did I confront him with my weapon forcing him to take off, the police didn't show up for more than a half hour.

I respect the police, I like most of the ones in my local precinct, but I would be an idiot to rely on them. There are reported incidents in my city of women calling the police as a break in occurred, being raped, murdered, and the police not showing up until a day later. I'm nearly seven feet tall, I take care of myself, and I could probably defend myself without a weapon but that's not really the point. My mother couldn't, my cousin couldn't, my friends with disabilities couldn't. I would prefer to have every single one of the armed than trust the police to make sure that all of the criminals have their guns properly registered.

The Newtown case is one of a legal gun owner's guns killing lots of innocent children and adults. It is not the only one recently, far from it.

Adam Lanza was not a legal gun owner. In a very technical sense he stole the guns from the rightful owner and used them to kill her and multiple individuals at her workplace.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Cuomo rushed to accomplish this just so that he will be able to say that he was the first to take "action" after Newtown when he eventually runs for President. He even rushed to beat out any Federal action. What a DB.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Seven bullets instead of ten...I don't think this part of the law will have much effect either way....

Since nobody makes a 7 round magazine for any number of popular calibers, including 9mm, .380, .45 Colt, .223, .22 rimfire, etc., and since there are no parts to convert a 10 round magazine to a 7 round magazine, the 7 round requirement has just made nearly every semi-automatic gun, including pistols and a lot of rifles that aren't "military look alikes" illegal.

In other words, this is a de-facto ban of almost all semi-automatic firearms with a removalble magazine.

I wonder how long it will be before the lawsuits start to fly?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Gov. Cuomo as quoted in a AP article in my local newspaper. "Common sense can win, you can overpower the extremist with intelligence and with reason and with common sense."

It is encouraging to see that even Gov. Cuomo agrees that by using intelligence, reason and common sense even extremist such as himself and Mayor Bloomberg can be overpowered. But then again, maybe not.

Just by reading through the posts on this forum one can see that for many gun control proponents, reason and common sense are not a welcome addition to the conversation. When one side of the discussion views the other as living in "hick states", being depraved "gun nuts" and tools of the "bad, bad, EVIL NRA"; it's easy to see how any research and reality based information that doesn't support their position just gets in the way of their personal agenda and therefore should be scorned, belittled and most definitely ignored.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Since nobody makes a 7 round magazine for any number of popular calibers, including 9mm, .380, .45 Colt, .223, .22 rimfire, etc., and since there are no parts to convert a 10 round magazine to a 7 round magazine, the 7 round requirement has just made nearly every semi-automatic gun, including pistols and a lot of rifles that aren't "military look alikes" illegal.

I can modify a magazine in a half hour. You can normally increase the number of rounds held in any given magazine by 2 or 3 extra rounds. Messing with the spring or cap one could easily reduce the number of rounds held in the magazine. Right now there's no reason to have a modification kit, a gun hobbyist can do it themselves without much effort, if the ban were instituted they might start popping up but I doubt that will happen. Most major ammo types also have 5 round magazines anyway.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Um they don't! Most police tactical teams, military special forces etc use a shortened version of the M-4 (the m-4a1 or Mk-18 cqbr) which is about 10 inches shorter than the standard m-4 / ar-15. But don't feel bad its a common mistake.

I think what you meant to say was they use a shortened version of the M16 called the M4. The difference between an M4 and an M4A1 is that the M4 has a burst fire mode while the M4A1 has a fully automatic mode, no burst.. M4's are considered assault rifles as well.

The M4 is a rifle, more official designation is a carbine. By that argument a sawed off shotgun isn't a shotgun. By your argument a short barrel rifle is not a rifle. M16s are referred to as full rifles.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Then if the homicide rate is going down and you're less likely to die from a gun than in a car accident, then you don't really need to have a gun to protect yourself from a gun in the first place. Thus, a ban on guns won't hurt anyone. Don't see why gun owners feel the need for a gun to protect themselves from a crime that is lowering and is less likely to happen to them from say a car accident.

Then there is really no need to ban them is there? Seeing as the grand total number of guns in circulation keeps going up that means that guns don't cause crime, they may not necessarily lower it but they don't cause it to go up.

If a person wants to own a firearm for protection even when there is no crime in there area that is perfectly acceptable. Besides you can use a gun to protect yourself from others types of crime not just gun crime. To me your argument is like saying with car deaths going down why the need to wear your seat belt? With home invasions going down why the need to lock your doors and windows when you leave your place of residence, heck why even have locks? With robberies going down why should banks even have secured vaults.

So much for doctor-patient confidentiality.... What about the guy that tells his psychologist that he fantisizes about bombing up a mall, or going on a rampage with a sword, or driving his car through a playground? Aren't those equally credible threats?

Well to be fair doctors treating someone who say they want to inflict harm are theoretically already suppose to under the current law reporting them, this new law just gives them a specific protocol to follow really and makes it easier to report them.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Piss off the wrong person in city government and the cops review all your documents to make sure you crossed

This sounds quite paranoid. If they wanted to they could do something to you already.

Assault weapons are an aesthetic term and shouldn't be legislated

The problem is we don't know who you are and why are you in a position to NOT refer them as assault weapons? There was a pro gun guy on CNN to referred them as assault weapons. He was public. You are not. But these years they have been used to "assault" some very public places, haven't they? It would imply it is popular terminology from what they have done which we hear about in the news.

It would also give the mentally ill incentive to illegally purchase weapons

How? If gun sales become very strict to the point of ALL sales being carefully registered how will they be "illegally" purchased? The same with felons?

If it happened to me who is going to take my word against a professional, especially when that professional says that I'm mentally ill.

Are you personally worried about being in a position where a "professional" believes you are mentally ill?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

If a person wants to own a firearm for protection even when there is no crime in there area that is perfectly acceptable.

By your argument, it is perfectly acceptable for a person to own a nuclear weapon even though there is no nuclear superpower in their neighborhood. It's perfectly alright then for me to set up a missle defense system in my backyard, even though there isn't a threat of an attack from the sky.

Adding more fuel to a fire, won't put it out, just like putting more guns out there won't make crime and violent deaths go away. Are gun owners so afraid that their lives would go to pot without having a gun in their possession? There will come a time when enough's enough. Eventually a leap of faith, or at least a small step needs to be taken towards the goal of a better place to live. Until then, the violence will continue to happen and more people will die.

To me your argument is like saying with car deaths going down why the need to wear your seat belt?

The difference is that not wearing your seatbelt solely hurts the person who doesn't wear their seatbelt. It's just like helmet laws and laws prohibiting people from walking the streets while wearing earphones listening to music. These "common sense" laws were put in place for people who would otherwise be in line for a Darwin Award. If people with guns were only a danger to themselves, then I would admit that it deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as not wearing your seatbelt.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

This sounds quite paranoid. If they wanted to they could do something to you already.

As I've already stated this already has happened to me in the past. I left my car on the street overnight and instead of writing up a ticket they he had it towed, he then made it a point to drive past my house to check for city code violations for paint and lawn height. If he could have made my life any more inconvenient he would have.

The problem is we don't know who you are and why are you in a position to NOT refer them as assault weapons? There was a pro gun guy on CNN to referred them as assault weapons.

I, like you, are some person on the internet. If you engage me in conversation you accept those terms and discuss the merits of the posts involved. I don't speak for others, I speak for myself. I find that the term 'assault weapon' is a misnomer used to demonize a certain type of weapon even though the term has nothing to do with their functionality or construction. The term is often confused with an 'assault rifle' which is a completely different type of weapon from those being described.

Assault rifle has selective fire which means that it is capable of automatic fire. Unless you have a dealer or collectors permit and have been cleared for a destructive device you can't buy these types of weapons. An 'assault weapon' means that it has on of several attachments such as a rail, muzzle break, pistol grip, bayonet lugs, or other such device, none of which increase the lethality of the bullets or change the functionality of the weapon in any way. Most people that use pistol grips or muzzle breaks have arthritis and these devices reduce the recoil and bayonets are just flashy stuff to look cool, I don't think anybody's been killed by a rifle mounted bayonet in decades.

But these years they have been used to "assault" some very public places, haven't they?

That would only work if you called all firearms assault weapons as the vast majority of gun homicides use handguns.

It would imply it is popular terminology from what they have done which we hear about in the news.

Popular doesn't mean smart nor does it mean correct. Right now the term is only used to cloud the issue over what kinds of weapons are being talked about, it defeats any attempt at clarity. I like arguing this topic because it's something worth arguing over but I like everybody to be on the same footing with regard to access to unbiased information.

How? If gun sales become very strict to the point of ALL sales being carefully registered how will they be "illegally" purchased? The same with felons?

Being as I live in Detroit that involves me driving two miles to one of the many places police don't go and buying one off of some guy in a back alley. Its one of those things where you'd think it wouldn't be that easy, but it is. I've found parts and even whole trigger assemblies on the street where people have tried to take them apart to dispose of. Guns are stolen every day, guns come over from Mexico every day, the are sold, traded, and used as barter at flea markets and garage sales on a daily basis. That is why registries are doomed to fail in the US.

Are you personally worried about being in a position where a "professional" believes you are mentally ill?

I've gone to a professional before both as a teen to get my OCD under control and as an adult to manage depression. I've thankfully passed that period of my life but to be perfectly honest if there was a possibility that my collection could have been stripped of me because they thought I was suicidal or violent I probably wouldn't have gone. I have friends with Asperger's and bipolar disorder (you tend to get a lot of those in corporate compliance) that are fully functional and are very responsible gun owners that have regular sessions, they indicated that they would keep going only because they know their therapist but if they ever retired they would probably stop seeking counsel.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

By your argument, it is perfectly acceptable for a person to own a nuclear weapon even though there is no nuclear superpower in their neighborhood. It's perfectly alright then for me to set up a missle defense system in my backyard, even though there isn't a threat of an attack from the sky.

Yep......Sadly the 2nd amendment does not refer to ordnance weapons.

Adding more fuel to a fire, won't put it out, just like putting more guns out there won't make crime and violent deaths go away. Are gun owners so afraid that their lives would go to pot without having a gun in their possession? There will come a time when enough's enough. Eventually a leap of faith, or at least a small step needs to be taken towards the goal of a better place to live. Until then, the violence will continue to happen and more people will die.

But we are not adding fuel to a fire are we, we are just storing fuel. No it won't go away but it can help deter the attackers from making you a victim. Take for example the armed guards on ships fighting off the Somali pirates. That has shifted the attacks away from the ships and onto land. Adding firearms to a house does not make it a worse place to live considering the vast vast vast vast majority of gun owners will not harm anyone.

What you are really asking for is a change is culture in terms of violence in general with any type of weapon, what you are asking for is a change in how people resolve their conflicts.

The difference is that not wearing your seatbelt solely hurts the person who doesn't wear their seatbelt.

That is not true at all, a person who is not in their seat belt can be thrown from the vehicle, that person go into the other vehicle or just land on some other pedestrian. That is like saying unsecured cargo in a crash is not going to hurt anyone.

Again people taking steps to secure something such as valuable belongings or their lives should not be outlawed because you find the threat going away nor should they be derided as paranoid.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Dear LORD!

New York and the federal government are not trying to ban all guns!

Just most semi-automatic and all automatic weapons (assault weapons) from unregulated civilian use!!!!!

And tough registry laws!

If you are a law abiding handgun owner and do not have a criminal record, then you are SAFE from having your weapons taken away!

Honestly, the NRA needs to stop spreading this paranoia propaganda!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites