First up is the Safe Act in New York, enacted in response to the Sandy Hook massacre. Possession of an assault weapon is a Felony under the Act which is not that big of deal but what is farseeing is that an assault weapon is now defined to include any semiautomatic weapon with just one feature of a military weapon, such as a second handgrip that can be held by a nontrigger hand, a folding or telescoping stock, or a flash suppressor.
Speaking of “chubbies” I always get one when I see the words “gun” and “confiscate” in the same sentence. The Safe Act does not disappoint here. Any law abiding citizen that owns a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds must turn it into law enforcement, or otherwise get rid of it, by January 15. Kudos to Judge Skretny who upheld both provisions against Second Amendment whining last week. Next up, and even more farseeing, is the New jersey “smart gun” law. You gotta love this one. The law says that only “smart guns” can be sold in the state, following three years after smart gun technology becomes available. By smart gun technology we mean some device that allows the gun to be fired only by the owner. For example, consider the Armatrix digital pistol:"One Germany-based company, Armatix, which already sells personalized guns in Europe, expects to have its Armatix iP1 digital pistol available on the nation's shelves "within weeks," according to Belinda Padilla, president and CEO.
Armatix uses radio frequency technology in its .22-caliber digital pistol, which unlocks with a digital watch and a PIN. If someone who isn't wearing the watch grabs the gun, it immediately deactivates."
Can’t you just see Clint Eastwood muttering, as he enters his Pin, “Go ahead, …R56TO …um… make my day.” Not quite as cool is it? How could anyone oppose such sensible laws? “We strongly oppose the New York and New Jersey law,” said NRA president I.M. Fulschit in a statement. “Our members need to have unlimited magazines in their assault weapons so they can defend themselves in wide- ranging street fights.” “And since most of our members are not very smart, we feel that the New Jersey smart gun law discriminates against us.” I think this is going to be a good year
For the life of me, I can't understand why you're so opposed to the right of people to protect their own lives and the lives of their families. And what's more, that you don't see how such laws could establish a legal precedent by which other rights could also be taken away.
1) what is the logic of curtailing people's gun rights, when gun violence is going down?!? Since the early 90's gun homicides has declined by some 50%. Since 2007, it's declined by 15%. If the current rate of decline continues, by 2034 the number of firearm homicides in the USA will reach ZERO.
2) In what way does a handgrip make a rifle any more deadly than a rifle without one? How does a rifle with a folding stock make it any more deadly than a rifle with a fixed nonadjustable stock? Why should people who wouldn't know how to clear a gun without shooting their faces off make rules governing their use? Should garbageman make rules governing court procedures? Should the Amish write our traffic laws?
3) How does a lower magazine capacity save lives? California has had a 10 round magazine capacity limit for years, yet Texas does not. Both states are large state with large populations. The result? They have nearly identical rates of firearm homicides.
Limiting magazine capacity could cost more lives than they save. For one, for every life that is lost from guns, 178 lives are saved. In some instances, one might need more than 10 rounds to protect themselves. Read this story.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2257966/Paul-Ali-Slater-Intruder-shot-times-face-neck-cornering-mother-kids-attic.html
This woman fired 4 rounds at this man's face and neck, and he still kept coming at her. After the 5th round he retreated. He was able to get in his car and drive away. The woman fired 5 rounds because that was the capacity of the revolver she was using. Now imagine if this guy had had an accomplice. Or two. Since guns are used far more often to save lives than take them, limiting magazine capacity means endangering the lives of law abiding citizens.
Here's another story. If you were the victim of a home invasion from multiple gunmen, what is the likelihood that you'll have access to a 2nd magazine? Is it more than none? Now how would you feel if you were limited on your ability to protect yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_rz2wBYin4
So you're now in favor of the confiscation of personal property without just compensation, Mari? Perhaps we should start confiscating the personal property of banks since they do more harm than guns.
We've been hearing about "smart" gun technology for years. Here's the problem: A gun is useless if it's not reliable. Guns are mechanical devices. They can be touchy. Two guns of the exact same make and model will not feel or fire the same. They're not cell phones. A gun will change over time. There's a small explosion going on inside a metal tube. Why do you think the FBI is able to track a particular round that's fired from a particular gun? Guns are made to be reliable. Glocks are renowned for still working even if you drop it in the mud. And you think it's a good idea to put sensitive digital technology on such a device? Technology, one assumes, would require a battery. I have a laser scope attachment for one of my guns, and that thing is the least reliable part of the gun. And a useless gun is the same as a total gun ban.
Here's a better idea. Gun owners should be responsible for their guns. If they're gun is stolen, and they don't report it, and the gun is used in a crime, then simply prosecute the gun owner. Isn't that a simpler and more logical approach?
And what is the moral about the majority taking away the rights of the minority? Only 12% of people in New Jersey are gun owners. Why should people who don't care to exercise a certain right be taking away the rights of those who do? How is this any more moral than a bunch of men making laws to limit abortion rights?
-- Modified on 1/9/2014 9:10:02 AM
Too bad it will fall on deaf ears. Which is why we get a lot more "you're an idiot" than we do "reasoned, well written arguments"
Come on anti gunners, prove me wrong.
The SAfe law has been litigated and the judge made the call based on the best evidence and arguments each side could make. Willy did not understand the purpose of the law when he made his arguments.
I think any state NY in this example, has become a target by implementing this act.
If a person wanted to commit a mass publicity shooting (MPS). They would gain the most exposure, by committing the crime in the state/s with the strongest modified SA firearm laws.
Unless you know of any other reason people would commit mass murder, other than publicity?
-- Modified on 1/9/2014 4:27:54 PM
Don't think they do it for publicity.
and in the context of this debate. We are talking about MM who use firearms when committing MM. Are well aware of the publicity, that comes with the crime.
Most of the recent suspects appeard to be functioning citizens. Prior to their mass murder.
I don't believe these people are criminaly insane.
Willy each of your points was raised by the plaintiff gun rights group and the NRA in a friend of the court brief. Both sides presented evidence in support of their views and an objective third party – the judge – made the call.
Let’s take each oe of your points and see what the judge decided.
1) what is the logic of curtailing people's gun rights, when gun violence is going down?!? Since the early 90's gun homicides has declined by some 50%. Since 2007, it's declined by 15%. If the current rate of decline continues, by 2034 the number of firearm homicides in the USA will reach ZERO.
You are looking at the wrong statistics. The SAFE law was enacted to protect the public against mass shootings. Mass shooting ARE GOING UP, not down. The judge found that over one half of all mass shootings since 1982 involved either an assault rifle, or large capacity magazine, or both:
“For example, an exhaustive study of mass shootings in America, defined as the murder of four or more people in a single incident, found that there have been at least 62 mass shootings across the country since 1982. Mark Follman, et al., A Guide to Mass Shootings in America, Mother Jones, updated Feb. 27, 2013, http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map. Frighteningly, "twenty-five of these mass shootings have occurred since 2006, and seven of them took place in 2012." Id. In the mass shooting with the most victims, at an Aurora, Colorado movie theater, police say the shooter used an AR-15 type weapon until its 100-round barrel magazine jammed. In all, the study found that assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, or both were used in over half of all mass shootings.
I’d say it is pretty logical to pass laws to protect the public against mass shootings when we she an exhaustive study like this one. Do you disagree?
2) In what way does a handgrip make a rifle any more deadly than a rifle without one? How does a rifle with a folding stock make it any more deadly than a rifle with a fixed nonadjustable stock?
The judge found that these features make the gun easy to use and, in turn, enhanced its lethality. Even the NRA unwittingly conceded this point:
“Plaintiffs contend that many of the outlawed features do not make firearms
more lethal; instead, according to Plaintiffs, several of the outlawed
features simply make the firearm easier to use. For instance, they argue
that a telescoping stock, which allows the user to adjust the length of the
stock, does not make a weapon more dangerous, but instead, like finding the
right size shoe, simply allows the shooter to rest the weapon on his or her
shoulder properly and comfortably. Another outlawed feature, the pistol
grip, also increases comfort and stability. The same goes for the "thumbhole
stock," which, as the name suggests, is a hole in the stock of the rifle for
the user's thumb. It too increases comfort, stability, and accuracy according to Plaintiffs.
But Plaintiffs later argue that the banned features increase the utility
for self-defense — which is just another way of saying that the features
increase their lethality. Plaintiffs make this explicit: "Where it is
necessary for a crime victim to shoot the aggressor, and lethal or
incapacitating injury will stop him, the lethality of the defender's firearm
is a precondition to her ability end the criminal attack." (Pls.' Br. at 22;
Docket No. 23-1.) The National Rifle Association of America, as amicus
curiae, make a similar argument, describing how the banned features improve a firearm's usability. (NRA Br. at 10; Docket No. 46.)
There thus can be no serious dispute that the very features that increase
a weapon's utility for self-defense also increase its dangerousness to the
public at large.”
“No serious dispute, Willy- pretty strong language. Ready to abandon this point also?
3. Why should people who wouldn't know how to clear a gun without shooting their faces off make rules governing their use? Should garbageman make rules governing court procedures? Should the Amish write our traffic laws?
Poor argument Willy. I didn't do this one. Experts in the field recommended these features and the legislators after study decided the public interest supported their recommendations
4) How does a lower magazine capacity save lives? California has had a 10 round magazine capacity limit for years, yet Texas does not. Both states are large state with large populations. The result? They have nearly identical rates of firearm homicides.
Limiting magazine capacity could cost more lives than they save. For one, for every life that is lost from guns, 178 lives are saved. In some instances, one might need more than 10 rounds to protect themselves.
Again you are setting up a straw man and then knocking him down by ignoring that this law is designed to protect against mass shootings. The judge found from the evidence presented that the large capacity magazine will indeed prevent shootings and save lives:
“The same finding is true for the ban on large-capacity magazines. Indeed,
the link between the SAFE Act's restrictions on large-capacity magazines and the state's interest in public safety is arguably even stronger here.
Koper testifies that it is "particularly" the large-capacity magazine ban
that will prevent shootings and save lives. (Koper Decl., ¶ 65.) Indeed,
large-capacity magazines are used regularly in mass shootings — they were
used in more than half of the mass shootings since 1982. And, more
troubling, their use is on the rise. In the past year, guns with
large-capacity magazines were used in at least five of the six mass
shootings. (Allen Decl. ¶ 18; Docket No. 69.)
Evidence also suggests that, quite simply, more people die when a shooter
has a large-capacity magazine. According to analysis conducted by NERA
Economic Consulting, the average number of fatalities or injuries per mass
shooting more than doubles when a shooter uses a large-capacity magazine. (Id., ¶ 20.) Similarly, a 2013 study of mass shootings over the past four years using data collected by the FBI found that shooters who used assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, or both shot over twice as many people and killed 57% more people than shooters who did not use these weapons. (Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Analysis of Recent Mass Shootings, February 22, 2013, attached as Ex. 39.)
“So you're now in favor of the confiscation of personal property without just compensation, Mari? Perhaps we should start confiscating the personal property of banks since they do more harm than guns.”
You left out a key word there, Sparky- illegal. I am indeed in favor of the confiscation of ILLEGAL personal property without compensation, whether owned by a NRA member of a bank.
So while you appeared to make some very legitimate points in the surface, your arguments are deeply flawed when we look at the purpose of this law and the facts that support the judge’s decision. Agree
Why do you think the court knows what is best for you, and the public at large?
But the post is in response to the specific arguments made by Willy which were the same arguments the gun rights people made in the case, albeit in a more sophisticated and focused manner. The ruling was not simply the judge's off the cuff opinion but a decision made after considering the evidence - studies etc - and argument presented by both sides.
Now if Willy is able to respond showing the judge got the facts wrong, we might give greater deference to Willy's opinions. But Willy was arguing from anecdotal evidence on gun use generally, not the problem of mass shootings, so Willy has to start over if he is going to persuade anyone the law is "bullshit."
Just because the facts are facts, and I could agree that the facts are the facts. Does not change my opinion that these laws would be effective in preventing, a massacre style shootings.
That was the premise of my response.
The Judge agreed with the facts. I don't feel any less safe, or any more safe as a result of these new gun laws.
In conclusion, I don't feel the ruling is in my best interest, or the public's best interest.
I don't think any one can disagree the law, is the law.
Not just "a court" but a single judge.
The fact of the matter is that mass shootings are NOT GOING UP, THEY ARE ACTUALLY DECLINING. The only reason why there is any perception that they are increasing is due to wide-spread media hysteria over guns. How about we post this question not to a journalist who has no background in criminology, but actually ask a criminologist about this? I give you Grant Duwe, a criminologist with the Minnesota Dept. of Corrections, who has also written a book on the subject entitled "Mass Murder in the United States: A History".
http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2013/09/23/mass-murder-decline
http://www.torontosun.com/2013/09/16/mass-shootings-actually-in-decline-in-us-despite-perception
And here Duwe presents a peer reviewed study on the subject in the Western Criminology Review.
http://wcr.sonoma.edu/v6n1/duwe.htm
From the study: "Over the past twenty years, claimsmakers have asserted that the mid-1960s marked the beginning of an unprecedented and ever-growing mass murder wave in the United States. Recent research has shown, however, that mass murder was just as common during the 1920s and 30s as it has been since the mid-1960s. Using the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR) and newspaper, network television news, and newsweekly magazine coverage as sources of data, this study examines why and how mass murder was constructed as a new crime problem. I suggest that the news media have figured prominently in the social construction of mass murder by heavily influencing which cases claimsmakers have selected as landmark narratives and, more generally, as typifying examples. Because claimsmakers have relied almost exclusively on national news coverage as a source of data, they have made a number of questionable claims about the prevalence and nature of mass murder since the high-profile cases represent the most sensational and least representative mass killings."
In other words, mass shootings are common place in the USA and have been since the 1850's. The difference is that the media has been reporting on them more often and in a more sensationalist manner.
A 2nd handgrip does nothing but permit the user to be more accurate in their aim. When used for self-defense, which I will remind you is the way most guns are used in the USA, a 2nd handgrip would allow the user to more successfully use such a weapon and hit their target, while potentially avoiding hitting innocent bystanders. The only reason why anyone would want to ban such features is to ban "scary looking guns", and a hunting rifle without those features is not in any way less lethal than an AR-15. One could easily argue that a hunting rifle is MORE lethal, since they use a caliber that is larger and more accurate over longer distances.
I would further note that according to the FBI, there were 8,353 firearm homicides in the USA in 2011, the most recent data that's available. ALL rifles (AR-15's included) comprised just 323 homicides, comprising just 3.8% of all firearm homicides. Oh, and firearm homicides committed with rifles? They are also GOING DOWN. Firearm homicides with rifles have declined by 28.6% since 2007, which is a rate of decline that is almost TWICE as fast as the decline in firearm homicides with handguns.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjnsBH9jGxc
If a lower capacity magazine limits did indeed save lives, then we should see it in the data. There are magazine capacity restrictions in California, Washington, DC, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York.
California has a per capita (out of 100,000) firearm homicide rate of 3.4. (13th highest in the nation)
Washington, D.C. has a per capita firearm homicide rate of 16.5. (highest in the nation, but not a state)
Hawaii has a per capita firearm homicide rate of 0.5. (3rd LOWEST in the nation)
Maryland has a per capita firearm homicide rate of 5.1. (4th highest in the nation)
Massachusetts has a per capita firearm homicide rate of 1.8. (32nd highest in the nation)
New Jersey has a per capita firearm homicide rate of 2.8. (23rd highest in the nation)
New York per capita firearm homicide rate of 2.7. (27th highest in the nation)
I see no correlation here. States with high capacity magazine bans are among the states with the highest firearm homicides in the US. There are ALSO among states with the least. Utah has no magazine capacity ban at all, and is ALSO among the states with the LEAST firearm homicides. As is Iowa, Idaho, and Wyoming. There are ALSO states with no magazine capacity ban that are among the states with the highest firearm homicide rates, such as Louisiana, Missouri, and South Carolina.
The fact that mass shootings have happened with high capacity magazines doesn't tell you anything, because one isn't taking into account the relative availability of those magazines. States without those bans, finding magazines with a low capacity is quite rare, with the exception of small concealed carry pieces. If the majority of all guns in such states have large capacity magazines, then it would only be logical that mass shootings are committed with guns with such magazines.
i.e. where the male kills his partner and his children and then kills himself.
And he covers a much longer time period than the Follman study which begins in 1982, exludes familcide and focuses on mass public shootings. And even Duwe concedes that in 2012 “The number of victims who were killed and wounded was greater than in any previous year in U.S. history.”
The judge -after considering the studies presented by both sides - said the Follman study was exhaustive. But here’s the graph – you tell me. If we start in 1982, are they going down like you said, or going up like the judge said
Both the Newtown, and Aurora mass publicity murders happend in 2012.
2012 should have the highest number of MM casualties. Mari these posts make you look like an idiot, but I fully support your right to do so.
Why do I label both of these incidents Mass Publicity Murders?
The Aurora shooting occurred at a highly publicized movie premier.
The Newtown shooting was inspired by the highly publicized shooting in Norway.
If you're going to include mass shootings of 4 or more people, then why shouldn't we include mass shootings of a family?
The problem here is that we're not actually counting mass shootings, per se. We're counting the number of times there's been sensationalist media reporting of mass shootings. A mass shooting in the home just happens to make for fewer news headlines than a mass shooting at an elementary school.
Given the nature of our media in this country, that they're run by for-profit companies, who actively seek to increase ratings in order to increase ad revenue, they have a vested interest in sensationalizing EVERYTHING. Normally, two days of cold weather in the winter isn't news. Attach the words "polar vortex" to it, and you've got ratings. Which for the news companies, means more bling.
To put this in perspective, here's a list of school shootings in US history. As you can see, school shootings have been a fairly regular occurrence in the United States since the 19th century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States
How many of these shootings are simply omitted from Mother Jones' not-so-thorough investigation?
But just for the sake of argument, let's assume that the MJ investigation really is as exhaustive as this judge seems to think. Prior to Sandy Hook, there were little, if any changes in the gun laws in the United States for many years. The last major change that I know of, would be the 90's assault weapons ban expiring during the Bush administration.
If the guns involved were the actual problem, then shouldn't we see a fairly steady and consistent rise in the number of mass shootings, or the number of fatalities and injuries? What do we actually find? You find high numbers one year and low numbers the next.
What is particularly telling is that one single event committed by single individual, such as what happened at Virginia Tech, is the difference between a few number of of mass shooting fatalities and a high number. This tells you just how "exhaustive" this study really is.
Even in 2012, when there were 80 deaths from mass shootings according to Mother Jones, there were 8,353 firearm homicides from all guns. In other words, mass shootings, at least by MJ's count is just 0.95% of all firearm fatalities. This is comparable to the number of people who die by being struck by lightning. Is this really the basis for taking away people's rights?
The SAFE law was not passed to deter domestic violence. The SAFE Law was passed to deter mass public shootings. So of course the judge would look at statistics focused on the weapons used in mass public shootings rather than domestic violence.
Willy you are fighting the good fight here for your position but you are a victim of past posting as they said in the Sting. The race has already been run. The judge determined that evidence presented was sufficient to support the two portions of the law about which I posted. Now before you say he was biased I would point out that he did strike one portion of the law - the maximum seven shot magazine requirement.
In balancing the rights of gun owners with the rights of the public, the judge found insufficient factual support for that law.
Sadly, the judge is not the last word. The case will be appealed ad the Second Circuit will decide if he applied the wrong standard of review, or if his ruling is not supported by substantial evidence.
But unless and until the Second Circuit says otherwise, the ruling is the law. And best of all, if the NY law is upheld we can expert other states to pass similar legislation.
...it isn't going to change this ruling. But that being said, the judge made a good call on the 7 round mag limit. The reason being is that 7 round magazines simply aren't made for most standard pistols. It would have been a defacto ban of almost all pistols.
I think the evidence I have brought to this thread is sufficient to determine that what kinds of guns used plays little into whether mass shootings happen. The general consensus I think is that this is simply a mental health issue.
A lot of the anti-gun crowd like to crow about Australia not having a single mass shooting since they effectively banned guns, yet if you look at the general rates of crime there, they've had the opposite result as the USA. Violent crime, particularly assault, has been steadily increasing.
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime/assault.html
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime/sexual%20assault.html
While the USA has had the opposite experience. Violent crime in all categories is steadily going down.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1
Mari, please report back here if the Second Circuit court says otherwise. If they uphold it, I have my doubts that the Supreme Court will act to overturn anything, it seems the high court wants to space out controversial rulings.
I've noticed that other states are taking a different approach by making their gun laws more lax. One state, I believe North Dakota, is now allowing teachers to carry concealed, so long as they volunteer to do so, and if they can pass a vigorous test to do so. It's preferred that such teachers already have concealed carry licenses beforehand.
Few states, I think, will take up this cause. There's a few states in New England, and California, but I don't see too many others jumping on board with this idea.
Recently, North Carolina legalized carrying concealed in bars, which made the anti-gun folks go apeshit. Of course, what they failed to realize is that North Carolina was only 1 of 4 states in the entire country to have such a provision on the books.
http://my.opencarry.org/?page_id=150
-- Modified on 1/11/2014 9:21:29 PM
-- Modified on 1/11/2014 9:23:52 PM
-- Modified on 1/10/2014 6:54:34 AM
But don't legislate the Rights of a vast law abiding majority away so as to better control the .0001% that are not "law abiding".
...then we should implement the same restrictions on other rights. Want to go worship in a church? How about you have to submit to a background check to the FBI to make sure you're not involved in criminal activity related to churches, like say blowing up women's clinics or killing homosexuals. How about a limit on how often you can attend a church in a given time period?
Want to go to a protest? It's background check time. You gotta submit your personal information to the FBI before you can exercise an "inalienable" right. And there's a capacity limit on how many people can attend said protest.
Want to consult a lawyer? Again, it's background check time. The FBI has got to know if you're a criminal before you can exercise that right. Oh, and there's a limit on how often you can talk to your attorney.
Want to have an abortion? It's background checks all around! Besides, we gotta make sure you're not crazy too. Oh, and there's a limit to the number of abortions you're allowed to have.
Do you want to keep your right of privacy, and not have the police just search your house at random? Well before you can exercise your right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, then you've got to first contact the FBI and have a background check done, so they can conduct an unreasonable search and seizure. Oh, did I mention that there's a limit on how many times you can demand that the police produce a warrant?
Gun control only makes sense if you never exercise your 2nd amendment rights. But if you apply those same principles to rights that the anti-gun crowd do care about, then it sounds a bit more unseemly. I'm a die-hard atheist, and yet I would never dream of trying to enact the kind of restrictions against churches that the unprincipled anti-gun crowd seems to want to enact against the 2nd amendment.
You either value your rights or you don't, people. If you don't value them, then there's a lot of other countries where you can live that have fewer liberties then we have here in the USA.
-- Modified on 1/9/2014 11:21:50 AM
You have a right to drink and a right to drive but if .0001% does both the majority is going to put their ass in prison. Same principle applies to weapons used in mass shootings.
Mari, why can't additional gun/gun-related charges be applied after someone commits mass murder
One has to drink THEN drive(or drink while driving) to be guilty of the crime of DUI. Having a semi-automatic rifle and/or a 30 round magazine offers no more threat to the public than a SUV with five cases of un-opened whisky in the back and a sober driver at the wheel.
If you want to punish crime; do so! But last I checked one is still "innocent" until proven guilty of a "crime".
Somehow common sense goes out the window in some peoples desperation to somehow "connect the dots"
As we all know, Mari often makes sense, that is UNTIL he starts talking about either "God bless Bank of America" or his disregard for the 2nd Amendment.
Guns don't kill people, Bullets don't kill people, high capacity magazines kill people. Yes that makes about as much sense as your SUV with fully legal and unopened whisky in the back. After all, you never know when that law abiding and perfectly sober driver of the SUV might succumb to the temptation of all that whiskey, and be unable to fight the urge to down a couple of bottles and go on a killing spree. Sounds like BigBackStabber logic to me.
When someone is so passionate about an issue, there is a chance that something personal may have happened, or is politically active in the issue. But once a month this topic pops up.
You had a really good thread a few weeks ago comparing extreme views on both sides of the aisle. I think it was an NRA member and his/her view on guns vs a Planned Parenthood member and her view on abortion. There is no debate, no compromise.
-- Modified on 1/9/2014 6:46:30 PM
First of all, limiting the number of rounds in a magazine to 10 is insane. Do you think the police in these limited states are forced to comply or are complying? Others have already pointed out examples of the ludicrousness of this concept.
I actually understand how in your mind you equate risks of a drunk driver with the risks of a person with a loaded firearm. So you are asserting that permitting a person to walk around with more than 10 rounds at the ready is just as dangerous as allowing people to drive drunk. But drunk driving laws are no where near analogous. A better comparison would be the creation of new laws that somehow limits how much a licensed driver can imbibe at any point in time. I'm not sure how that might manifest, limiting any person to purchasing no more than 3 beers a day?, no more than 2 glasses of Chardonnay? no more than 2 ounces of liquor? etc. How about breathalyzers built into every bar stool that activate when they detect the key fob in your pocket? Or maybe a breathalyzer built into a tamper proof box of your favorite white wine spritzer?
under the SAFE Act so your sole proffered reason is invalid.
If you still contend that “limiting the number of rounds in a magazine to 10 is insane,” then kindly comment on the evidence before the judge that lead him to uphold that portion of the law. These numbers ae pretty compelling:
“The same finding is true for the ban on large-capacity magazines. Indeed,
the link between the SAFE Act's restrictions on large-capacity magazines and the state's interest in public safety is arguably even stronger here.
Koper testifies that it is "particularly" the large-capacity magazine ban
that will prevent shootings and save lives. (Koper Decl., ¶ 65.) Indeed,
large-capacity magazines are used regularly in mass shootings — they were
used in more than half of the mass shootings since 1982. And, more
troubling, their use is on the rise. In the past year, guns with
large-capacity magazines were used in at least five of the six mass
shootings. (Allen Decl. ¶ 18; Docket No. 69.)
Evidence also suggests that, quite simply, more people die when a shooter
has a large-capacity magazine. According to analysis conducted by NERA
Economic Consulting, the average number of fatalities or injuries per mass
shooting more than doubles when a shooter uses a large-capacity magazine. (Id., ¶ 20.) Similarly, a 2013 study of mass shootings over the past four years using data collected by the FBI found that shooters who used assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, or both shot over twice as many people and killed 57% more people than shooters who did not use these weapons. (Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Analysis of Recent Mass Shootings, February 22, 2013, attached as Ex. 39.) "
Not seeing any insanity of large capacity mags used in assault rifles kill 57% more people. Agree?
The drunk driving analogy was not a comparison of the risk of drunk driving with the risks of using assault weapons with high power magazines but a response to the confused poster who stated “ don't legislate the Rights of a vast law abiding majority away so as to better control the .0001% that are not "law abiding". Duh – I simply pointed out to him that this happens all the time –it’s call law making.
Finally, let’s make sure everyone understand that I HAVE NEVER HAD A WHTE WINE SPRITZER IN MY LIFE
Indeed the act exempts law enforcement because they recognize they it would be INSANE to impose such a limit on someone trying to defend themselves.
ELEVEN rounds in a handgun is NOT high capacity.
Sorry I didn't address your motives for bringing up the crazy analogy.
I thought everyone knew you liked white wine spritzer?
But I bet you knew that large capacity alcohol containers were involved in most cases of drunk driving.
if you need an assault rifle with a large capacity magazine to defend yourself.
Waiter, send a white wine spritzer with my compliments to the gentleman with the AR 15 jumbo mag sitting at the table facing the door. I may not get this chance again.
Hand guns with 11 rounds or more are also illegal. That includes an overwhelming majority of existing (semi-automatic) weapons.
edited to clarify semi-automatic
-- Modified on 1/10/2014 3:58:28 PM
This guy could have had a lot of potential enemies, although I don't think the guy he killed was one of them.
What laws can we enact to protect the public from itself in situations like this?
Waiter, send a white wine spritzer with my compliments to the gentleman with the AR 15 jumbo mag sitting at the table facing the door. I may not get this chance again.
Of innocent or unarmed civilians maybe they should be limited or not have firearms at all. Shooting a hundred rounds at a truck that is similar to Dorners is a joke... Killing a driver who fled and was unarmed and walking on the sidewalk is as well..... How about the detective in Texas I think who killed his whole family with his service weapon before taking his own life?
Why do our politicians and police deserve better weapons and protection then we do? Maybe I wouldn't be so against it if the were held to the same standards.
I am thankful every day I don't live in California or NY. I support the firearms and accessory companies moving out of Connecticut and Colorado and in fact might am more willing to buy their products because they are standing up for my rights. You might not believe that they are my rights but today owning an assault weapon or high capacity mag is legal and as such my RIGHT. I also don't understand the fact that the magazine I ve had for my 10/22 since I was 10 (1986) and was legal then and legal now could suddenly make me a felon. I am not entirely sure that the Supreme Court would agree either. Fully auto firearms made before 1986 need to be registered but are legal. Grandfathering has long been a legal standard hasn't it? And if not shouldn't I receive full purchase price for items deemed illegal by new laws if they aren't grandfathered in? I don't believe these laws make me or my family safer. More people have been killed from Playgound accidents and lightening then all the mass shootings have since 1980.
Enforce the laws that we have. Adding more that won't be enforced will do no good.
If you still contend that “limiting the number of rounds in a magazine to 10 is insane,” then kindly comment on the evidence before the judge that lead him to uphold that portion of the law. These numbers ae pretty compelling:
“The same finding is true for the ban on large-capacity magazines. Indeed,
the link between the SAFE Act's restrictions on large-capacity magazines and the state's interest in public safety is arguably even stronger here.
Koper testifies that it is "particularly" the large-capacity magazine ban
that will prevent shootings and save lives. (Koper Decl., ¶ 65.) Indeed,
large-capacity magazines are used regularly in mass shootings — they were
used in more than half of the mass shootings since 1982. And, more
troubling, their use is on the rise. In the past year, guns with
large-capacity magazines were used in at least five of the six mass
shootings. (Allen Decl. ¶ 18; Docket No. 69.)
Evidence also suggests that, quite simply, more people die when a shooter
has a large-capacity magazine. According to analysis conducted by NERA
Economic Consulting, the average number of fatalities or injuries per mass
shooting more than doubles when a shooter uses a large-capacity magazine. (Id., ¶ 20.) Similarly, a 2013 study of mass shootings over the past four years using data collected by the FBI found that shooters who used assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, or both shot over twice as many people and killed 57% more people than shooters who did not use these weapons. (Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Analysis of Recent Mass Shootings, February 22, 2013, attached as Ex. 39.) "
Not seeing any insanity of large capacity mags used in assault rifles kill 57% more people. Agree?
The drunk driving analogy was not a comparison of the risk of drunk driving with the risks of using assault weapons with high power magazines but a response to the confused poster who stated “ don't legislate the Rights of a vast law abiding majority away so as to better control the .0001% that are not "law abiding". Duh – I simply pointed out to him that this happens all the time –it’s call law making.
Finally, let’s make sure everyone understand that I HAVE NEVER HAD A WHTE WINE SPRITZER IN MY LIFE.
"Similarly, a 2013 study of mass shootings over the past four years using data collected by the FBI found that shooters who used assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, or both shot over twice as many people and killed 57% more people than shooters who did not use these weapons. (Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Analysis of Recent Mass Shootings, February 22, 2013, attached as Ex. 39.)"
I'll ignore the fact that this "analysis" is coming from Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and ask how are they defining "assault weapon". The historical legal definition has been fairly limited to tactical rifles (like an AR-15) with selective fire capabilities (can shoot semi-auto, 3 round bursts, or full auto). These weapons are generally only available to the military.
What groups like this do is that they re-classify assault weapons as any semi-auto weapon, which would include nearly all pistols ever made since the early 20th century that has more than 10 rounds. Under that rather loony classification the majority of all guns in America is an "assault weapon".
We should also recognize that they're classifying a magazine as "high capacity" if it's normal capacity. For instance the 9mm Glock 17 was designed to carry 17 rounds. Most standard sized pistols carry 15-17 rounds. The magazine does not extend beyond the grip.
In other words, Mayors Against Illegal Guns is trying to enact bans on AR-15s by attributing deaths from handguns on AR-15s. That is what you call LYING.
Let's look at the FBI data.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
You can see that shotguns caused more deaths than "assault rifles". Knives caused more deaths than both. There are 424% more deaths from knives than from ALL rifles combined. Blunt objects caused more deaths than rifles. Kicking and punching people caused more deaths than rifles. And handguns caused over 5000% more deaths than all rifles. So where the fuck is Mayors Against Illegal Guns getting this 57% number from?
This study did not compare the total number of deaths caused by assault weapons with the total number caused by other weapons. The study looked only at the universe of mass shootings in the last 4 years. It then looked to see how many people mass shooters who used assault weapons, big mags or both killed, and compared that number to the number killed by mass shooters who used a less lethal weapon.
And the raw data came fro the FBI statistics.
The hard cold statistics showed that the mass shooters who used assault weapons, big mags or both KILLED 57% MORE PEOPLE than the other mass shooters.
That is where the 57% number came from. I don’t know what definition of assault weapon they used but it was not the expanded definition given by the SAFE law.
The judge could have used the numbers on the NRA website that Mein loves to quote so much - you know, how honest citizens with guns prevent violence every 30 seconds or so, but somehow the judge found the FBI statistics a bit more reliable. LOL
I'll ignore the fact that this "analysis" is coming from Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and ask how are they defining "assault weapon". The historical legal definition has been fairly limited to tactical rifles (like an AR-15) with selective fire capabilities (can shoot semi-auto, 3 round bursts, or full auto). These weapons are generally only available to the military.
What groups like this do is that they re-classify assault weapons as any semi-auto weapon, which would include nearly all pistols ever made since the early 20th century that has more than 10 rounds. Under that rather loony classification the majority of all guns in America is an "assault weapon".
We should also recognize that they're classifying a magazine as "high capacity" if it's normal capacity. For instance the 9mm Glock 17 was designed to carry 17 rounds. Most standard sized pistols carry 15-17 rounds. The magazine does not extend beyond the grip.
In other words, Mayors Against Illegal Guns is trying to enact bans on AR-15s by attributing deaths from handguns on AR-15s. That is what you call LYING.
Let's look at the FBI data.
You can see that shotguns caused more deaths than "assault rifles". Knives caused more deaths than both. There are 424% more deaths from knives than from ALL rifles combined. Blunt objects caused more deaths than rifles. Kicking and punching people caused more deaths than rifles. And handguns caused over 5000% more deaths than all rifles. So where the fuck is Mayors Against Illegal Guns getting this 57% number from?
So, if I'm understanding you correctly, Mayors Against Illegal Guns is MAKING AN ASSUMPTION that the sole reason for the higher number of fatalities is due to the fact that the shooter used a semi-auto rifle instead of a semi-auto handgun. Are we really to believe that other factors didn't play into these events, such as a lack of security, or the location the shooters picked, or differences in police response times? Do you really think that MAYORS AGAINST ILLEGAL GUNS would bother to take the time to make that determination?
They say the raw data came from the FBI. I say, show me the fucking raw data.
Last I checked, mass murder was illegal.
We could just ban the masses. 
All we need to do is ban all public schools. See how simple that was?
That makes about as much sense as anything coming out of the anti gun camp. Or maybe we can just chalk up this thread to one too many white wine spritzers on the part of a certain unemployed male porn star?
Why was the Safe Act enacted in New York, in response to an incident occurring in Connecticut?
I've had since my 6th birthday, is not only an antique, but a high capacity magazine, assault rifle? Say it ain't so....but the State of New Jersey, now says it is so.
I'm a member of the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs. If you don't believe a BB gun is not an assault weapon, made so by legislation due to the amount of 'rounds' that can be loaded into the 'magazine', search, www.anjrpc.org for the ruling.
Mari, do you remember a few years ago, when you were on this subject, and you said you didn't need a firearm to protect your home and family? You said you had dogs to do that? Remember that I commented that when I broke into your home, the first thing I would do is shoot your fucking dogs? Hope you at the least have a baseball bat as a back-up.