Gun laws in the great state of NY

[::XeS::]

I can kill a man with duct tape

Let's ban that

It's not the same.
A gun gives you a sense of omnipotence and if you have a gun you have more probability to use it...a little bit of depression is enough sometimes.
Shooting with a gun is way easier than stab someone or also punch to death an "enemy".
The statistics are unequivocal...in the country where the laws against the weapons are more strict, there are way less murders.
The point is that if it's easy for you to buy a gun, it's easy also for a criminal...and moreover when a criminal enter into an house, he's ready to use it and often he know how to use it...normal people don't.

 

[SocialNumb]

The point is convenience

And I'll argue that it's always is in these days. That's what we all, for most part, count on
(information, readily available) I think anyone can take any medium, as it where, to cause mass damage. I don't usually agree with Mutant above, but it's as easy as that. I can quickly assemble such a scenario posing as a student with a backpack in a crowded mall.

I'm not so much protecting gun rights as I am trying to demonstrate, interweb wise , that most tools can and will be used for what we consider an immoral use of tools.

I would love, probably more than any of you(?), to have have some semblance of a utopian society among all humans.
(I personally find lines drawn in the dirt some kind of human dysfunction, imo)

I've said it before, I do not kill, anything, if it's in my power to do so. I only protect myself and those that I care about, while trying to stay alive myself. Sustenance and so on.

I'm that guy, conscious of what ant I might step on. At the same time, killing other life by my mere existence.

Morals are very grey, in a grand scale.

 

[006]

The point is that if it's easy for you to buy a gun, it's easy also for a criminal...and moreover when a criminal enter into an house, he's ready to use it and often he know how to use it...normal people don't.

That is that person's fault for not learning how to use the firearm they obtained. Huge flaw there. When you buy a gun for protection, or any reason for that matter, you better be familiar with it and know how to use it. More importantly, be ready to use it and know when and why to do so because if you aren't you are a fucking idiot for pulling it out in the face of someone threatening you or your family or your possessions. So what is your argument here? That guns should be banished because some people get one for protection and don't bother to own it responsibly? Wow...

What so many anti-gunners don't seem to realize is that stricter regulation hurts the law abiding citizen more than it does criminals. Criminals will get guns. Criminals do not care about gun laws. Do you know what more regulation translates to for criminals? It means it's that much easier and less risky for them to hurt or kill someone for their property because it's less likely they have a gun to protect themselves.

I'll let you in on a secret: criminals can get guns any time they want. Unless there is a way to completely wipe out all the guns from the planet, there's no way criminals will be short on guns any time soon. It's not "easy" for someone to legally buy a gun. In the case of hand guns especially, there are waiting periods, federal checks, licenses. Criminals do not have to deal with any of that. They go find some piece of shit on the street and get one from them illegally - and said piece of shit does not care what he will use it for, does not care if he's been convicted of anything prior, etc. I believe rifles and shotguns can be had virtually immediately (at least here in TX), legally, but they are still registered upon completion of sale. Once again, criminals do not have to register their illegally obtained firearms. So please, explain to me how "easy" it is for a law abiding citizen to legally obtain a gun compared to a criminal. It's not.

Legal firearms are not the problem, it's the illegal ones that need to be dealt with.

 

[MarcusGHedwig]

John makes a pretty good point though, which I think should be addressed - I have no trouble imagining that quite a few people who would be able to pass the requirements for owning a firearm could snap through any number of stressors in life (unfaithful wife, losing job, random onset of schizophrenia, whatever), and having a gun in the house would enable them to impulsively act on it by killing someone (or many people) far more than, say, a bladed weapon (which is a lot less efficient and I would say requires a much more unstable mental situation to use, as stabbing/slicing is much bloodier, messier, and generally more savage)

Just playing devil's advocate though, I'd need to see statistics to see if that held any water, but it makes sense to me.

 

[::XeS::]

Of course criminals can get arms wherever they want...but in my opinions less arms around is better.
It doesn't seem that in USA, where you can buy weapons and the laws are way more permissive, you have the most secure country in the world...it seems the opposite.
I don't think that if every family has an arsenal at home, the crimes and the murders will decrease...in my opinion they will increase...and a lot. Because you have to understand that you're not vigilantes and in an emergency situation like, for example, you wake up with a criminal in front of you...the emotions etc can generate a gunfire and maybe someone of your family can suffer from that....domestic accidents (kids, etc...) and as I already said there is a lot of subject with mental sickness or in risky situations that can kill someone very easilly if they can get a gun.
Or do you wanna return in the far west where everybody walk with 2 guns?
You have to analize every case...not only "ok I have a gun at home and I'll kill everything moves" but also the accidents, the mads, the depresseds, the stupids, the suicides that, I repeat, with a gun in your hand are waaaay easier to do.

 

[006]

Of course criminals can get arms wherever they want...but in my opinions less arms around is better.
It doesn't seem that in USA, where you can buy weapons and the laws are way more permissive, you have the most secure country in the world...it seems the opposite.
I don't think that if every family has an arsenal at home, the crimes and the murders will decrease...in my opinion they will increase...and a lot. Because you have to understand that you're not vigilantes and in an emergency situation like, for example, you wake up with a criminal in front of you...the emotions etc can generate a gunfire and maybe someone of your family can suffer from that....domestic accidents (kids, etc...) and as I already said there is a lot of subject with mental sickness or in risky situations that can kill someone very easilly if they can get a gun.
Or do you wanna return in the far west where everybody walk with 2 guns?
You have to analize every case...not only "ok I have a gun at home and I'll kill everything moves" but also the accidents, the mads, the depresseds, the stupids, the suicides that, I repeat, with a gun in your hand are waaaay easier to do.

It is better to have and not need than to need and not have.

Who is talking about vigilantes? I can't speak for other states but here in TX we are allowed to protect our home, property and loved ones with deadly force if deemed necessary. That is not vigilante. That's a right. And who said arsenal? Most homes with a weapon for protection have just one. One gun is not an "arsenal." Where do you get your information?

Look, go tell all your fairy tales and naive notions to people that have been murdered or injured in their home or on the street for their property and didn't have a way to protect themselves. They probably used to think the same way as you. When police can respond instantaneously then I'll give a shit (so... never).

Accidents happen. Sure. But if you look at facts, there are numerous accidents per year, fatal and non-fatal, that greatly outweigh those involving firearms. Data from a 2007 study shows in order of most to least for fatal accidents: motor vehicles, poisoning, fall, unspecified, suffocation, drowning, fire/burn, other land transport... (8 categories later) firearms. Followed by cycling, cut/piercing and overexertion. With firearms constituting 0.5% of those.

Then non-fatal, data shows: fall, motor vehicle, other specified, poisoning... (15 categories later) firearms, followed by dog bites. With firearms constituting 0.05%. Yep.

So certainly, you could accidentally shoot a loved one in the situation of an intruder of your home. But fortunately for them the facts show that they have a very small chance of that happening. I'm not saying it can't happen, it does, but like .3% of the time. I'll gladly take those odds and so would my loved ones.

The facts show that throughout the history of gun regulation in the U.S., every time more regulation is imposed, the crime rate goes up. Washington D.C., for example, employed new regulations on firearms requiring trigger locks and for the weapon(s) to remain unloaded. What a surprise that after that, crime rates went up. When that regulation was later found unconstitutional and reversed, magically the crime rate went down. HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM. There is a city in Georgia that has laws that actually require the citizens to own at least one firearm and for it to remain loaded. To everyone's surprise, they have the lowest crime rate in the country. WOW. Numerous studies conducted over the years speaking to violent offenders show that at least 1/3 in every study abandoned the situation instead of completing the crime because they either saw their victim with a gun or believed they had one. NO WAY! And finally, crime rates were lower in the U.S. when guns were easier to buy before 1968, when you could buy a gun with no paperwork and walk out with it. Please, tell me more about how much crime goes down with more gun control imposed on law abiding citizens. Because the facts say otherwise, regardless of your opinions.





I'll just leave you with this: when guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns.

Enjoy that situation.

 

[JHA]

I'd like to clear that I'm not a gun hater in any way. I think hunting/sports shotguns and rifles are ok for hobbyists. I'm only talking about handguns, especially semi-automatic ones. There's absolutely no reason for a normal civilian to own one and let's face it, they are useless in hunting, you can't hit anything with them. There's also a reason why gun stores don't sell machine guns and bombs and such.

The point many here are trying to make is that it's really easy for anyone to go and buy a handgun and some bullets if they are freely available. It's easy to hide. There's a reason why sawn-off shotguns are illegal in civilized countries. You can't seriously compare that to learning chemistry and making a bomb or something... or killing someone with a duct tape in public area First, a gun is a ranged high speed weapon. With duct tape, you'd need to run and catch the person first and chances are, someone would stop you before you could do any harm. But I'm sure Skinny Viking will clear how he would proceed with the task since he's a duct tape expert.

 

[TravisW]

I don't think anybody's saying that it's not easier to kill a bunch of people with a gun than with a knife, or pencil, or rusty tin bucket. What they're saying is that there are already a lot of gun control laws on the books that could be more properly enforced rather than tacking new laws onto the list.

Also, when it comes to overtly antisocial behavior, like shooting up a school, we see mass stabbings in other countries with much stiffer gun ownership laws. It's almost more perverse, simply because they target the thing that allows them to inflict the most damage, like kindergartens. You can't really legislate for an entire population based on the criminal fantasies of the very few. Some people purposely drive over others with cars, but there would never be an auto licensing law built around that contingency.

I don't think anybody here would be in favor of handing a loaded firearm to every felon the moment they left the prison gates. But, there's a whole lot of space in between "Give everybody a gun" and "no firearms for anybody except the military", which is where pretty much the entire western world exists.

 

[Loren Littlejohn]

However, you can't walk into a school class or a shopping center and kill several people in mere seconds with a sword or a bow, or duct tape...

Maybe you can't you fucking pussy.

But anyhow, sarcasm aside this argument is getting old. I guess the solution is to let the government fuck me to death with laws and taxes so that everyone can feel safe.

 

[Loren Littlejohn]

there are already a lot of gun control laws on the books that could be more properly enforced rather than tacking new laws onto the list.

This was certainly part of, if not most of my original point when I started this.

 

[Skinny Viking]

But I'm sure Skinny Viking will clear how he would proceed with the task since he's a duct tape expert.

Come on over to my place and I'll show you

 

[colonel kurtz]

Numerous studies conducted over the years speaking to violent offenders show that at least 1/3 in every study abandoned the situation instead of completing the crime because they either saw their victim with a gun or believed they had one

they say the biggest deterrent to someone invading your home is the sound of a shotgun being cocked...

I'm only talking about handguns, especially semi-automatic ones. There's absolutely no reason for a normal civilian to own one and let's face it, they are useless in hunting, you can't hit anything with them.

sorry, but you're off the mark on this one. i know people who deer hunt in areas that are populated by wild boars, and they take both a rifle and large caliber handguns with them. the rifles work great on deer, but they're pretty unsuitable to use against a charging boar.

 

[006]

The point many here are trying to make is that it's really easy for anyone to go and buy a handgun and some bullets if they are freely available.

I've already addressed this with XeS but... What are you talking about? It is not "really easy" for "anyone" to go and buy a handgun. In TX I believe you must be 18 to purchase shells. That's fine enough, because without a gun the shells are virtually useless. But back to how "easy" it is. It's not. There are federal checks. A waiting period. Registration. Licenses (if you want to CC). It is, in fact, more difficult to legally obtain a firearm than it is to illegally get one. Meanwhile a criminal can go pick one up and rob/rape/murder you with it, without ever having to deal with a background check, a waiting period or registration. And, in fact, crime rates were lower before 1968 when you could purchase a firearm with no paperwork and walk out with it.

There's absolutely no reason for a normal civilian to own one and let's face it, they are useless in hunting, you can't hit anything with them. There's also a reason why gun stores don't sell machine guns and bombs and such.

...hunters use semi-automatic handguns while hunting all the time. Can't hit anything with them? (What's the problem then???) Tell that to the thousands of competition shooters that use semi-automatic handguns. So, to you, semi-automatic handguns are especially not ok, but revolvers are? Even though you can fire off 5-6 rounds in a revolver just as quickly as a semi-auto? With a speed loader you're talking maybe an extra second or two of reload time with revolvers. If you're gonna hate, hate equally. Also, know what you are talking about when you hate.

And yes, there is indeed a reason why gun stores do not sell machine guns and bombs. They are illegal for civilians to purchase. Semi-automatic handguns, shotguns and rifles, are not. Furthermore, why would a gun store sell bombs in the first place?

Anti-gunners are more dangerous than guns themselves. You know why? Because the overwhelming majority have no idea what the fuck they are talking about. And what's worse than that, they don't realize what they are asking for. That is a terrible combination, especially when it's that absolute ignorance aimed at the BoR. Once again, if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. If you want that, you are a god damn idiot.

 

[colton]

I'll just leave this here.

 

[JHA]

I've already addressed this with XeS but... What are you talking about? It is not "really easy" for "anyone" to go and buy a handgun. In TX I believe you must be 18 to purchase shells. That's fine enough, because without a gun the shells are virtually useless. But back to how "easy" it is. It's not. There are federal checks. A waiting period. Registration. Licenses (if you want to CC). It is, in fact, more difficult to legally obtain a firearm than it is to illegally get one. Meanwhile a criminal can go pick one up and rob/rape/murder you with it, without ever having to deal with a background check, a waiting period or registration. And, in fact, crime rates were lower before 1968 when you could purchase a firearm with no paperwork and walk out with it.

...hunters use semi-automatic handguns while hunting all the time. Can't hit anything with them? (What's the problem then???) Tell that to the thousands of competition shooters that use semi-automatic handguns. So, to you, semi-automatic handguns are especially not ok, but revolvers are? Even though you can fire off 5-6 rounds in a revolver just as quickly as a semi-auto? With a speed loader you're talking maybe an extra second or two of reload time with revolvers. If you're gonna hate, hate equally. Also, know what you are talking about when you hate.

And yes, there is indeed a reason why gun stores do not sell machine guns and bombs. They are illegal for civilians to purchase. Semi-automatic handguns, shotguns and rifles, are not. Furthermore, why would a gun store sell bombs in the first place?

Anti-gunners are more dangerous than guns themselves. You know why? Because the overwhelming majority have no idea what the fuck they are talking about. And what's worse than that, they don't realize what they are asking for. That is a terrible combination, especially when it's that absolute ignorance aimed at the BoR. Once again, if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. If you want that, you are a god damn idiot.

First, I think you need to calm down dude there's no reason go enrage about it... If you had read what I wrote: "if they are freely available", I didn't say they are easy to get.

I'd like to see you hitting a wild duck with a semi-auto pistol, get real they are fucking useless for real hunting. I'm not hating anything here I'm just being realistic. I have experience firing with both .357 mag revolver and .45 semi-auto and honestly the pistol is much faster. That is if you can actually hit anything at long range with it's short barrel. Trust me, it's not like in your fav movie where they hit everything with endless bullets. Every serious hunter uses either a rifle or a shotgun. Pistols and revolvers are just for bragging.

You say machine guns and bombs are illegal to purchase, why is that though, explain. And when/if you do get on with your explanation, think about it awhile and realise that that same reasoning can be applied to any high capacity/caliber firearms, like assault rifles or semi-auto pistols. I've shot with 762 assault rifle when I was in the army and it's quite obvious to me why they are not sold to individuals in gun stores.

 

[mva801]

There is such a thing as sport shooting. I own a .40 s&w semi auto handgun, and shoot it at the range regularly. I have a concealed carry permit from when I lived in Utah. I can't use it in California, but I didn't really carry when I lived in Utah anyway. I hope to never have to use my gun on another person, and it almost always stays locked in the closet. I also used to carry my handgun on deer hunts. I've had more than one mountain lion sighting up there, and it's a safer bet to dispatch one of those with my .40 than with a 30-30.

I don't think every type of weapon needs to be available to the public, but I think that the second amendment protects our right to own handguns, and that they can be beneficial on more than one level. England banned nearly all handgun ownership in 1997, and the amount of gun related crime has mostly increased since that time period. If bad guys want guns, they're going to get them no matter what. Taking them away seems to only set back the responsible gun owner...

 

[John_C]

England banned nearly all handgun ownership in 1997, and the amount of gun related crime has mostly increased since that time period.

Source? (note, newspapers don't count. Especially the daily mail.)

 

[mva801]

Sorry, should have thrown a source in there....

http://webarchive.nationalarchives....rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf

Page 14: shows an increase in the number of homicides in the six to seven years after the handgun ban.

Page 16: shows a small decrease in gun related homicides the year or two after the gun ban, (which btw, were ALREADY on a downward trend) and then a steady to marginal increase in the years following. The use of firearms in Homicide cases has always been a small percentage according to those figures. Other methods (knife, strangulation, beating) have always been much more prevalent. So a complete ban on handguns has done little to nothing in reducing the amount people killed by weapons. (or at least has had no measurable effect that I can see with regard to saving lives...)

What exactly has it accomplished?

 

[006]

First, I think you need to calm down dude there's no reason go enrage about it...

It never ceases to amaze me.... you're so right man, I'm so enraged I'm about to boil right over and go into nuclear fuck mode. Lol... give me a fucking break, I'm totally chill, it takes a lot more than pointing out the flaws in anti-gunners arguments to get me worked up, don't worry

If you had read what I wrote: "if they are freely available", I didn't say they are easy to get.

I did read:

The point many here are trying to make is that it's really easy for anyone to go and buy a handgun and some bullets if they are freely available.

And since handguns and ammo ("bullets" is incorrect, btw) are not freely available, I don't get what you intended to say other than what I logically concluded to in my reply. Nobody is advocating that guns and ammo should be given away as door prizes. Most pro-gunners are very much in favor of some of the regulations in place. Like age requirements, the registration and background check, licensing for CC, etc. So, what the hell are you talking about then? The only people that can "freely" get guns and ammo are criminals, and they get them illegally. Are you saying you think it's too easy for criminals to get illegal weapons? Shit! Me too dude! Hey, we agree on something. Otherwise, your point means nothing.

I'd like to see you hitting a wild duck with a semi-auto pistol, get real they are fucking useless for real hunting. I'm not hating anything here I'm just being realistic. I have experience firing with both .357 mag revolver and .45 semi-auto and honestly the pistol is much faster. That is if you can actually hit anything at long range with it's short barrel. Trust me, it's not like in your fav movie where they hit everything with endless bullets. Every serious hunter uses either a rifle or a shotgun. Pistols and revolvers are just for bragging.

Thanks for explaining how unrealistic movies are, I would have never guessed. A revolver is just as fast in capable hands, don't kid yourself. And, "if you had read what I wrote" (which, more on that later), you would have seen I said "...hunters use semi-automatic handguns while hunting all the time." Note I didn't say to hunt, just while hunting. Which is exactly true. Kurtz provided an excellent example of hunters carrying them in case they encounter a pissed off boar charging at them. They are easier to wield in that situation than a larger shotgun or rifle. It's amazing that you also refuse to use anything other than ducks in your argument for hunting with pistols. Who uses a pistol to hunt ducks anyway? People use pistols to hunt other things, though. Look it up. Also, you do realize you don't have to fire every shot in the magazine off as fast as possible, right? You can take it one shot at a time. And pistols can actually be incredibly accurate if they are made for it and in capable hands. If you think otherwise well... you simply don't know what you are talking about. Just because you can't hit shit with them doesn't mean others have the same results. Did you know people don't use rifles to hunt ducks either? Do you even know anything about duck hunting? Usually it involves a shotgun with pellet loads, in case you weren't aware. Meaning, you aim in the general direction of the bird and hope a few pellets hit it and take it down. Yeah, complete accuracy is the name of the game there...

You say machine guns and bombs are illegal to purchase, why is that though, explain. And when/if you do get on with your explanation, think about it awhile and realise that that same reasoning can be applied to any high capacity/caliber firearms, like assault rifles or semi-auto pistols. I've shot with 762 assault rifle when I was in the army and it's quite obvious to me why they are not sold to individuals in gun stores.

Quite honestly, I don't care to entertain your side-stepping question other than to correct myself and say machine guns are not illegal to own - just heavily regulated for civilians. But I will gladly point out yet another incorrect thing you have said. Calibers like .308, .30-'06, .300 Winchester Magnum, etc, are significantly more powerful than the 7.62x39 round, all of which are sold in gun stores. Never mind the fact that you can legally purchase 7.62 ammo and a rifle to accommodate it, such as the SCAR, AR-15 (there is a 7.62 version), H&K G3 and AK-47, for example, which are all legal to purchase by civilians in semi-automatic configuration. Full-auto is useless in general, hell, even the military mostly uses semi-auto or burst fire most of the time on standard issue assault rifles supplied to the troops. They are capable of full-auto, sure, but semi and burst are used way more frequently - for accuracy.

Back on "if you had read what I wrote," yeah, let's talk about that for a second. Notice how you have completely avoided addressing any of the facts I have stated. Not a single one. Interesting. Should probably learn to practice what you preach.

 

[006]

So a complete ban on handguns has done little to nothing in reducing the amount people killed by weapons. (or at least has had no measurable effect that I can see with regard to saving lives...)

What exactly has it accomplished?

I can't speak for other countries, but the NAS has tried for several years to link gun regulation to decreasing crime rates in the U.S. and has found ZERO evidence to support that to date. In fact, all evidence shows that the places with the least gun regulation have the lowest crime rates in the country.