[pgviper]

I know all of you aren't New Yorkers but I would like to hear peoples opinions on the recently passed gun laws.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2478418.html

I think this is absolutely ridiculous, i'm f**king embarassed to be in a state/country where this is acceptable. After the Colorado and CT shootings, people forgot that there were TWO issues that needed to be addressed.

1) Gun control
2) MENTAL ILLNESS

Politicians have yet again chosen the easier and more socially motivated topic to address, gun control. It is 100% politically motivated because in 4 years, people don't give a shit about a plan to address patients with mental illness, they are going to hear about gun control and think that this current administration is G*d's gift to us. I just frustrates me in the direction that this country is moving. People are uneducated, ignorant and selfishly motivated and its disgusting.

If you care because you don't live in NY then WAKE THE F**K UP BECAUSE THIS IS COMING TO ALL THE STATES SOONER THAN LATER!!!

[xbook]

Sounds like good legislation to me. Restrict the amount of ammo that the firearm can use at one time, and make owners of semi-auto rifles have to register them. I think this part is especially useful:

In another provision, therapists, doctors and other mental health professionals will be required to tell state authorities if a patient threatens to use a gun illegally. The patient's weapon could then be taken away.

I disagree with your statement that people have forgotten about mental health issues. That has been a major part of this discussion.

[OldArmy]

Mass shootings have gone down and continue to trend down.

So what exactly is NY trying to fix? It certainly isn't anything to do with the tragic murders of children.

How will these measures stop mass murder?

[Bingobimmer]

I definitely think tighter background checks are a good thing. Also, I can budge on the high round mags, but a full assault ban is a bit much in my opinion. On the national stage I would be pleased if each side gave up some ground to meet together in a happy and safe America... I guess that is more of a dream though.

[DieselDiner]

Any mention of violence in video games and movies? If they want to castigate sacred cows, I hope they go for all of them, not just a select few. Or perhaps that doesn't fit their agenda?

[Templar]

Originally Posted by DieselDiner

Any mention of violence in video games and movies? If they want to castigate sacred cows, I hope they go for all of them, not just a select few. Or perhaps that doesn't fit their agenda?

The movie industry feeds the politicians way too much money for them to go after Hollywood. That will never happen in a million years.

[pgviper]

Originally Posted by xbook

Sounds like good legislation to me. Restrict the amount of ammo that the firearm can use at one time, and make owners of semi-auto rifles have to register them. I think this part is especially useful:

In another provision, therapists, doctors and other mental health professionals will be required to tell state authorities if a patient threatens to use a gun illegally. The patient's weapon could then be taken away.

I disagree with your statement that people have forgotten about mental health issues. That has been a major part of this discussion.

YOU ARE THE PROBLEM!!!!!!

You see all of these great regulations coming into play, they sound amazing on paper, I give you that. They are also politically correct and they SEEM like they will fix the problem. In reality, they aren't going to do the job!!! We see this from every other nation that has extreme gun laws. Australia has insane gun laws AND they are a damn island yet they still have mass shootings. NY is just a state, what is going to keep someone in PA from coming into NY to commit a mass murder?? If someone is going to commit a crime, they are going to commit a crime PERIOD. On a small level, if they can't get an assault rifle to stand up a convenient store (which normally they aren't using, who the hell uses an AR-15 to stand up a store), they will use a shotgun or a pistol which aren't even mentioned in these new regulations. Same for mass shootings. If you are going to shoot 45 bullets (five 9 round magazines), now you have to reload one extra time (six 7 round magazines), BIG F**KIN DEAL!!!!! It takes about 15 seconds to reload. Come on people, it doesn't take an assault rifle to commit a mass shooting, any class of gun can be used to commit large amounts of damage.

Registering weapons sounds great but it does nothing to PREVENT the problem. It only addresses the aftermath. From the mass shootings we have seen lately, these guys want you to know who they are and honestly don't care if they are caught or they kill themselves.

The only thing I do agree with is the mental background checks.

My point is that these regulations are a waste of tax dollars and are a politically motivated move so that Cuomo can say he was THE FIRST to make a move when he decides to run for president in 2016.

I graduated high school in 2007 and every day we had a police car outside the main door, security at every entrance and id's that we always had to carry on us. At the time, this seemed a bit excessive however looking back on it, these were necessary measures not to protect the students from themselves but to protect them from outside dangers. This is the type of security that we need. Obama can talk all day how we shouldn't have guns at school but his kids probably have a dozen armed guards standing around them at their school at all times. Is this because his kids are worth more??? F**K NOOOOOOO!!!! We use armed guards to protect our banks, our airports, train stations, etc... but what about our most prized possessions. I am only 23 but I know that if I asked any parent if they would trade their lives for their childs, they would say yes. So why are we willing to put more protection around what we are willing to give up rather than protecting what we value most????

[xbook]

Originally Posted by pgviper

YOU ARE THE PROBLEM!!!!!!

You see all of these great regulations coming into play, they sound amazing on paper, I give you that. They are also politically correct and they SEEM like they will fix the problem. In reality, they aren't going to do the job!!! We see this from every other nation that has extreme gun laws. Australia has insane gun laws AND they are a damn island yet they still have mass shootings. NY is just a state, what is going to keep someone in PA from coming into NY to commit a mass murder?? If someone is going to commit a crime, they are going to commit a crime PERIOD. On a small level, if they can't get an assault rifle to stand up a convenient store (which normally they aren't using, who the hell uses an AR-15 to stand up a store), they will use a shotgun or a pistol which aren't even mentioned in these new regulations. Same for mass shootings. If you are going to shoot 45 bullets (five 9 round magazines), now you have to reload one extra time (six 7 round magazines), BIG F**KIN DEAL!!!!! It takes about 15 seconds to reload. Come on people, it doesn't take an assault rifle to commit a mass shooting, any class of gun can be used to commit large amounts of damage.

Registering weapons sounds great but it does nothing to PREVENT the problem. It only addresses the aftermath. From the mass shootings we have seen lately, these guys want you to know who they are and honestly don't care if they are caught or they kill themselves.

The only thing I do agree with is the mental background checks.

My point is that these regulations are a waste of tax dollars and are a politically motivated move so that Cuomo can say he was THE FIRST to make a move when he decides to run for president in 2016.

I graduated high school in 2007 and every day we had a police car outside the main door, security at every entrance and id's that we always had to carry on us. At the time, this seemed a bit excessive however looking back on it, these were necessary measures not to protect the students from themselves but to protect them from outside dangers. This is the type of security that we need. Obama can talk all day how we shouldn't have guns at school but his kids probably have a dozen armed guards standing around them at their school at all times. Is this because his kids are worth more??? F**K NOOOOOOO!!!! We use armed guards to protect our banks, our airports, train stations, etc... but what about our most prized possessions. I am only 23 but I know that if I asked any parent if they would trade their lives for their childs, they would say yes. So why are we willing to put more protection around what we are willing to give up rather than protecting what we value most????

How am I the problem? Isn't the problem people using guns to commit homicide? Sounds like you may need to calm down just a bit there vipper.

If we didn't have armed security for the president's daughters, that would be a national security risk. No armed security for my niece and nephews, not so much. Al Qaeda can kidnap them and at most my sister can cobble together a few thousand bucks to get them back. The children of the president of the US on the other hand...they have much more value to our enemies.

[pgviper]

I'm saying, that these moves were politically motivated. That's all. THey aren't addressing the problem, they are just doing what ignorant folks want to hear so that in the next election, there is something to brag about.

To the car enthusiasts on this forum, what happens if New York, a bnunch of eco friendly folks bans the sale of any car having 250+ horsepower and limits your speed to 65 mph. People kill others in cars all the time, there were two massive pileups on long island within the past month. I bet all of the people on this forum owning anything more than a 1/3/5.28i would be outraged. At the end of the day, you don't need to be going over 65 to kill someone and you don't need more than 250 hp to drive like an idiot.

It's the same principal.

People's rights are being taken away due to the actions of a few and because the real problem is not being addressed. That is what I am trying to say.

[radix]

Originally Posted by xbook

How am I the problem? Isn't the problem people using guns to commit homicide?

So why don't we just make homicide illegal instead of guns?

[BKsBimmer]

Originally Posted by radix

So why don't we just make homicide illegal instead of guns?

I guess you haven't heard, we did that. It's not working. We need to try something else.

Nobody is talking about taking away anybody's guns or banning all guns. The proposed legislation targets the more menacing guns designed for no other reason than to do maximum damage to humans in the shortest amount of time.

Please tell me why anyone needs an AK-47 or XM-15???? Never seen anyone go hunting with one of those.

[radix]

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

I guess you haven't heard, we did that. It's not working. We need to try something else.

OK, make guns illegal near schools.

[MP0WER]

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

I guess you haven't heard, we did that. It's not working. We need to try something else.

Nobody is talking about taking away anybody's guns or banning all guns. The proposed legislation targets the more menacing guns designed for no other reason than to do maximum damage to humans in the shortest amount of time.

Please tell me why anyone needs an AK-47 or XM-15???? Never seen anyone go hunting with one of those.

I know several people who hunt with AKs and ARs.

Please tell me why i don't need it? I haven't shot anyone with it, it's locked up secure when not in my hand. And oh yeah, if you haven't heard, only .0005% of gun homicides in this country are committed with long guns.

[bolinp78]

Originally Posted by MP0WER

I know several people who hunt with AKs and ARs.

Please tell me why i don't need it? I haven't shot anyone with it, it's locked up secure when not in my hand. And oh yeah, if you haven't heard, only .0005% of gun homicides in this country are committed with long guns.

But they are big, black, scary & make me emotional!!

[Nate4641]

No one needs an AR15, but people want them. You don't need to drive a BMW, but you wanted one. People do enjoy owning firearms for purely recreational purposes.

[Chrisruf911]

Originally Posted by bolinp78

But they are big, black, scary & make me emotional!!

Lol. I know it right. Its a sad fact that most people who are advocates for the banning of so called "assault rifle" know almost nothing about them. I cannot count the number of times I have heard "citizens do not need automatics!" Really....? I wish people would do more research. Ar-15s, sks, and ak-47 are ALL used for hunting and are NOT machine guns. In caswe you do not know a machine gun is a fully automatic gun. The 5.56x45 cartridge an ar shoots is probably the weakest rifle cartridge in existence. Your standard 30-06 or .308 deer rifles can be far more devestating.
Take a guy with two Glock 19s who is a decent shot from either hand and he can put rounds out faster than an ar or an ak.

[OldArmy]

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

I guess you haven't heard, we did that. It's not working. We need to try something else.

Nobody is talking about taking away anybody's guns or banning all guns. The proposed legislation targets the more menacing guns designed for no other reason than to do maximum damage to humans in the shortest amount of time.

Please tell me why anyone needs an AK-47 or XM-15???? Never seen anyone go hunting with one of those.

Please define "menacing gun" for me. Is it the black plastic stock criterion?

You are definitely missing the point on this. You don't get to challenge what I want to own, it's none of your business. I obey all laws and pose no threat to anyone that isn't threatening me or mine (or you). It's none of your business what kind of gun I have or want.

As mentioned before--there is no roadway in the US where you can use a BMW to its full potential so why do you/we need one?

[sjk9671]

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

Never seen anyone go hunting with one of those.

I don't see any mention of hunting in the 2nd amendment ?

[BKsBimmer]

Originally Posted by OldArmy

Please define "menacing gun" for me. Is it the black plastic stock criterion?

For me, the term menacing has very little to do with a guns appearance. It has more to do with a guns purpose; what it was specifically designed for. Guns for military use are specifically designed to kill a lot of humans quickly. That's what makes them menacing guns. They were not originally designed for personal use by civilians yet their derivative versions are among the most popular guns sold today.

Originally Posted by OldArmy

You are definitely missing the point on this. You don't get to challenge what I want to own, it's none of your business. I obey all laws and pose no threat to anyone that isn't threatening me or mine (or you). It's none of your business what kind of gun I have or want.

Your self righteous indignation is duly noted, but that doesn't change the facts.

A Pew poll shows the following:

85 percent of Americans support background checks
55 percent support an assault weapons ban
54 percent support a ban on high-capacity magazines

In the past notable republicans including Ronald Reagan supported reasonable gun restrictions including a ban on certain types of guns such as those described above. That was before Republicans were completely co-opted along with many Democrats by the NRA. The NRA says their interest is protecting citizen's rights to own guns, but truthfully their main concern is protecting gun manufacturers ability to make money.

Originally Posted by OldArmy

As mentioned before--there is no roadway in the US where you can use a BMW to its full potential so why do you/we need one?

You are (intentionally) overlooking the obvious but very important difference between BMWs and guns. BMWs are not designed to kill people.

[BKsBimmer]

Originally Posted by sjk9671

I don't see any mention of hunting in the 2nd amendment ?

I don't see any mention of black helicopters coming to take your guns either.

[RedBarron]

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

For me, the term menacing has very little to do with a guns appearance. It has more to do with a guns purpose; what it was specifically designed for. Guns for military use are specifically designed to kill a lot of humans quickly. That makes them menacing guns. They were not originally designed for personal use by civilians yet their derivative versions are among the most popular guns sold today.



Your self righteous indignation is duly noted, but that doesn't change the facts.

A Pew poll shows the following:

85 percent of Americans support background checks
55 percent support an assault weapons ban
54 percent support a ban on high-capacity magazines

In the past notable republicans including Ronald Reagan supported reasonable gun restrictions including a ban on certain types of guns such as those described above. That was before they were completely co-opted along with many Democrats by the NRA. The NRA says their interest is protecting citizen's rights to own guns, but truthfully their main concern is protecting gun manufacturers ability to make money.



You are (intentionally) overlooking the obvious but very important difference between BMWs and guns. BMWs are not designed to kill people.

Your argument is convoluted. The military uses fully automatic weapons that have been banned for civilians to posses a while. An AR-15 is styled after such a gun, however is no more or less capable of killing than any of other gun. And banning a gun because it seems "menacing" is absurd. By your logic all guns should be banned, since they where all designed to "kill".

Look at some rough numbers:
3,200 Killed from stabbings
8,583 Where killed associated with firearms.
16,000 people are killed per year from DUI's.
40,000 from Car deaths. (32% DUI, 31% Speeding)
100,000 Medical Mal Practice
443,000 deaths from smoking

Furthermore, a vast majority of gun violence is attributed handguns rather than rifles like an AR-15. I do not foresee banning AR-15's and magazines realistically having any real impact at all on gun violence. Statistically gun violence in the USA compared to population is a fraction of a percent. There will never be a correct anwser to gun violence, and I have no opposition to background checks, but banning things since they seem "scary" typically have a limited understanding of firearms and I perceive it as a zero sum game to say banning current AR's and AK and 30 round mags will any meaningful impact.

[OldArmy]

BMWs scare me. They are just too fast, no one needs that kind of capability on American streets. Purpose-built to break the laws of the land, only a radical sociopath would want or own one. You can tell they are dangerous by the low aspect tires, chrome exhaust tips, aggressive flared fenders, expensive sunglasses on the dash.

I propose we restrict the following (so I'll feel safer):
-After market exhausts (too loud, stock is good enough)
-Lightweight wheels (unsprung weight is normal, why avoid it?)
-Aggressive tires (165/75 14s are just fine for everyone)
-High octane fuel (regular can get you the 90 hp you need)
-High revving engines (who needs more than 2000 rpm--no one!)
-Spoilers (no need for them at 55 mph and slower)
-Multi-valves, radical cams, etc....it goes on.

I'm hoping to get some legislation rammed through quickly before anyone challenges me or asks any questions about how effective my recommendations will be at solving my angst. Bottom line--you don't need any of these things, because I say so.