Politics and Religion

You do know the many guns covered by the safe act are
613spades 5 Reviews 351 reads
posted

being sold again in NY after minor cosmetic changes; including the ar-15. I m guessing the market for stolen ones hasn't changed much with the passing of the law. Most of the sellers are committing multiple felonies by crossing state lines with stolen firearms, felons being in possession of them and selling them illegally. It's no different than the flow of firearms into Chicago or DC. Usually black market guns are cheaper than you can buy them for at local ffla dealers.  
         http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/02/16/cosmetic-tweaks-to-ar-15-thwart-new-york-ban-on-assault-rifles/
         If you think putting Raymond Felton in jail for  years makes you safer I am happy for you. But to be honest he's probably not the one tax dollars should be spent on prosecuting and locking up. It ll just add to over crowding so some violent offender gets years shaved off his sentence to make room.
 

Posted By: marikod
       I bet you cannot find even one example on the NRA website where 4 burglars invaded the home and the homeowner saved the day with an assault gun.  If it is 4 to 1 against a frightened untrained homeowner, the homeowner is dead, unless he just executes the men in his front yard. Then he gets indicted.  
   
        Really, Jack, you’ve got to stop watching those Clint Eastwood movies.  
   
          As for buying an assault gun on the black market, try doing that in New York these days where it is a felony to own one.  You can probably still find one if you search hard enough but guess what? It is going to cost you thousands and maybe 5 figures , not hundreds. And better keep it hidden, as NBA player Raymond Felton will tell you. His girl friend turned in his gun to the police and he got indicted. Best of all NY gun makers have stopped making them so the supply is decreasing.  
   
            Now you see why we need national legislation instead of leaving it to the states.  
 

will once again rage, with pro-gun nutcases and anti-gun nutcases squaring off to fire their rhetorical rounds at each other; another shameful attempt to grab headlines and to make political hay from the misfortunes of others.

I am a Constitutionalist. I support legal gun ownership in accordance with our rights under the second amendment. I will concede that every gun crime involves a gun, but balk at the notion that guns are the cause of crime or that guns are "bad" as a matter of near-religious faith and fervor.

As the debate rages, I hope we can rely more upon facts rather than irrational beliefs and the "damned lies" of conveniently spun statistics. Here are a few facts:

 
Mass shooting rates have remained relatively stable, and quite rare, over time.
http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/mass-shootings/

Gun bans are not proven to reduce homicide rates. The opposite may be true.
http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

Strict gun controls do not reduce homicide and violent crime rates. The opposite may be true.
http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/guns-in-other-countries/
https://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Private gun ownership is quite effective at preventing and reducing some violent crime; dealing with recidivism would be even more effective.
http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/guns-and-crime-prevention/
http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/crime-and-guns/

In an effort to simply present facts or accurate data, I have not cited a source that accepts support from a political or advocacy group that is either for or against guns or gun control (so far as I could determine).

thisbud4u408 reads

I am one of those who believe gun control will not work in a country where there are already millions of firearms.     Background checks are a waste of time and money.     The false propaganda that Federal Government is going to take away your guns is a lie.

What is needed is respect for the life of another individual irrespective of race, religion, language and national origin and that includes fathers, mothers, husbands, wives and children.    When that respect for life is missing, guns become an easy way out in settling differences and disputes.   It becomes an easy way out to get rid of people you don't like and hate.    The victims then become part of national statistics.

Lastly, it is important to draw a difference between robbery, street crimes, drug related violence AND the mass shootings that have occurred.  

We can use statistics to show facts but when your wife, child, father or mother become a victim and another entry in to the statistics, I am sure the perspective will change.   Until such time there will always be talk of FOR and AGAINST.

Posted By: thisbud4u

   
 Lastly, it is important to draw a difference between robbery, street crimes, drug related violence AND the mass shootings that have occurred.  
The difference is mass shooting deaths rarely occur in comparison to the number of deaths that occur as a result of other criminal activity. This fact has nothing to do with race, religion, or hate.

We simply don’t know what the facts are – there is no peer reviewed data that allows us to measure the relationship between most gun laws and gun violence. The best studies I have seen conclude that so many other factors bear on the cause of gun violence that isolating gun homicides and gun laws is meaningless. Indeed, your very post shows that we really have no “facts” on the points you raise.

        “Gun bans are not proven to reduce homicide rates. The opposite may be true.” “Strict gun controls do not reduce homicide and violent crime rates. The opposite may be true.”
          Absolutely true, but meaningless. Gun availability also is “not proven to reduce” homicides or violent crimes.  And the opposite MAY be true.
 
       “Mass shooting rates have remained relatively stable, and quite rare, over time.”

     Rare, yes, but so are airplane crashes. As to rates being “stable,” that all depends on the time period and how you define a “mass shooting.” In the New York Safe Act litigation where both sides presented conflicting expert testimony on this issue, here  is what the judge found:

        “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, Frighteningly, "twenty-five of these mass shootings have occurred since 2006, and seven of them took place in 2012." Id.  

    If 25 of the 62 occurred since 2006 and 7 took place in 2012, the rates are not “stable” at all, are they? Include domestic shootings in the stats, however, and you get very different numbers. Mass public shootings, not mass shootings, are the problem of our age.
 
       “Private gun ownership is quite effective at preventing and reducing some violent crime; dealing with recidivism would be even more effective.”  

       On a national basis, there is absolutely no valid peer reviewed data on this. I can go to the NRA website and find tons of “studies” saying this; I can go to Brady websites and find “studies” reaching the opposite conclusion. But peer reviewed studies evaluating either position – zip. There is no national data – the FBI stats are the best we have but much of this data depends on self reporting from the states.

         Again, too many factors bear on whether someone commits a violent crime  
to conclude that either gun availability or gun bans play a causal role.

        So while you absolutely right that we need to “rely more upon facts rather than irrational beliefs and the "damned lies" of conveniently spun statistics,”   we just don’t have the facts that allow us to make broad valid policy judgments here

But if it is as you claim, "that we simply don't know what the facts are", then why are you on the side to take away some gun rights from law abiding citizens?

Without the facts, isn't it better to side with the Bill of Rights?

that assault weapons/ high capacity mags should be banned,  that public carry is a bad idea, and that the gun show loop hole should be closed.

         The honest citizen does not need an assault weapon or high capacity mag to defend the homestead or even to shoot a bad guy in public. But such weapons increase the lethality of the bad guy in a mass public shooting or the cross -fire risk if a Second Amendment cowboy tries to act like Clint Eastwood.  Public carry poses a greater risk that the gun will discharge and hit an innocent citizen (like me) than it does that you will defend yourself against a bad guy. Remember Willy use to take his gun in the DC subway. Those cars are packec at rush hour. And the gun show loophole obviously frustrates federal law for no good reason.

      I don’t know whether any of this would actually reduce gun violence but bc you don’t have any need to buy an assault gun at a gun show and carry it into Starbucks where I ‘m having a latte, I’m agin it.

      So you have to be gun issue specific and where you don’t have facts apply logic rather than default to a broad reading of the Second Amendment

If it's just one intruder into your home, sure, a handgun would proly be enough but if a potential innocent victim was looking at 3-4 intuders, I am sure you would agree the assault weapon would give them a much better chance at self preservation.

Also, protecting oneself and ones loved ones is only part A of the second amendment. An equally important reason is so the citizens can attempt to overthrow a tyrannical government. I can most assure you the government in that case will be using high mag/assault weapons to repel the rebellion.

But all of this is moot to me anyway. There is an implication by many on the Left that gun control means less guns or less access. I don't believe that. The government thought the same thing about prohibition and that didn't turn out all that well.

If someone wanted to get an assault rifle, whether they are banned or not, they will get one. If they are banned, the black market will cover the supply in an incredible increase in demand.

I bet you cannot find even one example on the NRA website where 4 burglars invaded the home and the homeowner saved the day with an assault gun.  If it is 4 to 1 against a frightened untrained homeowner, the homeowner is dead, unless he just executes the men in his front yard. Then he gets indicted.

       Really, Jack, you’ve got to stop watching those Clint Eastwood movies.

         As for buying an assault gun on the black market, try doing that in New York these days where it is a felony to own one.  You can probably still find one if you search hard enough but guess what? It is going to cost you thousands and maybe 5 figures , not hundreds. And better keep it hidden, as NBA player Raymond Felton will tell you. His girl friend turned in his gun to the police and he got indicted. Best of all NY gun makers have stopped making them so the supply is decreasing.

           Now you see why we need national legislation instead of leaving it to the states

GaGambler469 reads

I see why BP calls you a fake lawyer, you don't seem to have much regard for the tenth amendment, do you?

I suppose you favor a national police force too, maybe along with a national ID??? Along with nationalized health care, etc etc. Just how big is "big enough" where it comes to the federal government. Fuck it, we might as well just get rid of this antiquated notion of "states" altogether, Maybe elect a King while we are at it?

Posted By: marikod
I bet you cannot find even one example on the NRA website where 4 burglars invaded the home and the homeowner saved the day with an assault gun.
Does this still count even though the NRA didn't supply it?

being sold again in NY after minor cosmetic changes; including the ar-15. I m guessing the market for stolen ones hasn't changed much with the passing of the law. Most of the sellers are committing multiple felonies by crossing state lines with stolen firearms, felons being in possession of them and selling them illegally. It's no different than the flow of firearms into Chicago or DC. Usually black market guns are cheaper than you can buy them for at local ffla dealers.  
         http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/02/16/cosmetic-tweaks-to-ar-15-thwart-new-york-ban-on-assault-rifles/
         If you think putting Raymond Felton in jail for  years makes you safer I am happy for you. But to be honest he's probably not the one tax dollars should be spent on prosecuting and locking up. It ll just add to over crowding so some violent offender gets years shaved off his sentence to make room.
 

Posted By: marikod
       I bet you cannot find even one example on the NRA website where 4 burglars invaded the home and the homeowner saved the day with an assault gun.  If it is 4 to 1 against a frightened untrained homeowner, the homeowner is dead, unless he just executes the men in his front yard. Then he gets indicted.  
   
        Really, Jack, you’ve got to stop watching those Clint Eastwood movies.  
   
          As for buying an assault gun on the black market, try doing that in New York these days where it is a felony to own one.  You can probably still find one if you search hard enough but guess what? It is going to cost you thousands and maybe 5 figures , not hundreds. And better keep it hidden, as NBA player Raymond Felton will tell you. His girl friend turned in his gun to the police and he got indicted. Best of all NY gun makers have stopped making them so the supply is decreasing.  
   
            Now you see why we need national legislation instead of leaving it to the states.  
 

But I am baffled as to why you refer to the changes as "minor" and “cosmetic.”

       I presume that the Safe Act compliant guns do not have large capacity magazines. I presume they can hold only 10 rounds.  If I am right (and I don’t see how I could be wrong), do you consider this a minor cosmetic change?

      I also presume that the new guns lack a pistol grip or second grip and the other features outlawed by the Safe Act.  The removal of these features makes the gun less lethal. No, that is not just my opinion, that is what the judge found in the litigation –after considering competing expert testimony - and even the NRA inadvertently conceded (the NRA argued that these features made the gun easier to use for self defense which the judge noted was another way of saying it made the gun more lethal). How is this cosmetic?

       Is this your personal judgment, or did you merely accept  the view of the gun rights author who published the first article labeling the changes as “cosmetic” which was picked up by numerous other pro gun rights articles?

     And get ready for Safe Act 2 which has some really great features if they pass the legislature

There was a gun control rep talking about the ruger mini 14 being as deadly as the ar15 and how it was used in a shooting in Miami yrs ago to kill and injure 3 agents. Under the safe act the mini 14 is more or less still legal and actually is sold with a five round clip so they can go bigger.  
         Magazines limits really dont make much difference if you practice changing them. But the truth is if you were going to go on a killing spree in NY why not drive or take a train to philly or somewhere, buy the ar or parts to bypass the safe act mag release and extended capacity mags. I mean if someone decides they want to commit a mass shooting they have probably planned it out for a year or more in their head. Why wouldn't they take the steps prepare?  
         Our societies problem is looking for answers with laws that, in my opinion, won't stop people who are truly motivated and set on it. Let's take the safe act. How many mass shootings has NY had in the past 10yrs? I m thinking zero, how many would the safe act have prevented, still at zero I think but to play along let's say Newtown occurred in NY and it would have been prevented. 27 lives correct?  
          Ok the safe act per year will make felons of at least 150 people but probably many more. The cost of prosecuting and imprisioning these people for the first year is roughly 30 mil- 22 mil per year after that. And it will compound every yr until we reach the balance point depending on sentencing averages. Let s assume 3 hrs served. 90 mil in first yr costs- 66 million in prison costs. 150 million is probably low for the cost of the safe act every three years, this doesn't include enforcement costs, lost taxes from locking up otherwise law abiding citizen who did nothing wrong other than buy a legal firearm and not dispose of it when the law was passed. Add in court costs of defending this and it ll be 200 million a year pretty easy.  
         So 200 million a year to at best try to prevent something that has never occurred in NY, could still occurs very easily even with the safe act and I don't think the cost benefit is there. It doesn't make sense from a fiscal standpoint.
          I am not saying firearms violence isn't an issue we should try to stop. What I m saying is we need to tackle it in more effective ways. Violent offenders almost always repeat, lock them up for longer terms, actually prosecute and enforce current firearms escalators and it would have an effect. If committing a felony with a firearm carried a min 10 yr extension or sentence I would guess you would see a huge impact on firearms violence in the next 5 yrs. to me it's better than band aides like the safe act.  

Posted By: marikod
    But I am baffled as to why you refer to the changes as "minor" and “cosmetic.”  
   
        I presume that the Safe Act compliant guns do not have large capacity magazines. I presume they can hold only 10 rounds.  If I am right (and I don’t see how I could be wrong), do you consider this a minor cosmetic change?  
   
       I also presume that the new guns lack a pistol grip or second grip and the other features outlawed by the Safe Act.  The removal of these features makes the gun less lethal. No, that is not just my opinion, that is what the judge found in the litigation –after considering competing expert testimony - and even the NRA inadvertently conceded (the NRA argued that these features made the gun easier to use for self defense which the judge noted was another way of saying it made the gun more lethal). How is this cosmetic?  
   
        Is this your personal judgment, or did you merely accept  the view of the gun rights author who published the first article labeling the changes as “cosmetic” which was picked up by numerous other pro gun rights articles?  
   
      And get ready for Safe Act 2 which has some really great features if they pass the legislature.  
 

Posted By: marikod
The honest citizen does not need an assault weapon or high capacity mag to defend the homestead or even to shoot a bad guy in public.
You make flat assertions that are based not on any facts. Indeed the facts indicate quite the opposite.

GaGambler321 reads

With such a sage and wise man like Mari to lead us, who needs silly things like the Bill of Rights. When the facts are in doubt, we can just consult Mari to tell us what we need and what we don't.

Here are two different reports of NY police inaccuracies during real gunfights. One, by an independent study covering an 8 year span, revealed a mere 18% hit rate. Another by the NYPD showed only a 28% hit rate.

So under present NY law, limiting my magazines to 8 rounds, if I'm as well trained as NYPD's finest, I can expect to maybe land one round somewhere in my attacker. Will it subdue him? Is he alone? What can we expect as a response from mari? Maybe an offer to help pay my funeral expense?

And can we begin to quit calling them assault rifles? An assault rifle is a fully automatic weapon. I know the now defunct federal ban referred to them that way but what was banned were merely semiautomatic weapons that are made to look scary, no more deadly at close range that a semiautomatic pistol (actually a rifle is less effective in close quarters).

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/weekinreview/09baker.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://nation.time.com/2013/09/16/ready-fire-aim-the-science-behind-police-shooting-bystanders

GaGambler354 reads

I believe the new definition is "any weapon that looks scary, or resembles a military weapon in appearance, regardless of it's actual capacity to kill"

as for me, I still prefer my Glock  with the 17 round capacity, plus one in the chamber. (someone please explain to Mari what I mean by that)

I don't claim to be able to hit every target, every time in the heat of a firefight, I choose a firearm that gives me the best chance of surviving such  an event, no matter how unlikely it is I ever have to do so, and yes, I am proficient with a hand gun, but I am not going bet my life that it's not the ninth, tenth or 17th round that saves my life, and Mari's expert reassurances to the contrary don't make me sleep any easier.

I could only "like" your post once.

Australia changed its gun laws after mass shootings and it worked.

You may comeback and say, it is Australia not US, very true. When it comes to Guns, some of us are insane.

Although Mr. Obama likes to cite Australia, there are no peer review studies that conclude that the strict gun laws played any meaningful role in reducing gun violence. Google “Australia gun laws fail” and you get plenty of articles like this one:

"It's true the homicide rate fell after the law took effect -- but it had also been falling long before that. A study published by the liberal Brookings Institution noted that the decline didn't accelerate after 1996. Same for lethal accidents. Suicide didn't budge. At most, they conclude "there may" -- may -- "have been a modest effect on homicide rates."
Researchers at the University of Melbourne, however, found no such improvement as a result of the new system. "There is little evidence to suggest that it had any significant effects on firearm homicides or suicides," they wrote.  
Howard says the country has had no mass shootings since 1996. But mass shootings are such a tiny share of all homicides that any connection may be purely a matter of chance.
We learned from the 1994 assault weapons ban that modest gun control measures don't work. What Australia suggests is that even if radical ones could be passed, they wouldn't work either."

 
    The relationship between gun laws and gun violence - we just don't know.
 

Posted By: anonymousfun
Australia changed its gun laws after mass shootings and it worked.  
   
 You may comeback and say, it is Australia not US, very true. When it comes to Guns, some of us are insane.

thisbud4u412 reads

Other countries can do whatever they like as there is no Second Amendment in their Constitution.

thisbud4u424 reads

I would not insane but it is just depraved indifference to human life.   Guns are a easy way out to get rid of other human beings.

I know it's only one incident, look at the case of Jessie Mathews(who is innocent until proven guilty) no firearm was used to murder the victim in that case.

thisbud4u395 reads

This thread is about mass shooting using a firearm in a church.    For other homicides why not you start another thread for mass murders using knives ?

There is already a thread about this topic

Posted By: thisbud4u
This thread is about mass shooting using a firearm in a church.

Timbow448 reads

and Obama would love to confiscate all guns.  

Posted By: anonymousfun
Australia changed its gun laws after mass shootings and it worked.  
   
 You may comeback and say, it is Australia not US, very true. When it comes to Guns, some of us are insane.

the data I could find that did not seem overtly spun by those on one side or the other of the debate. In fact, our arguments taken together highlight the idiocy of rulemaking on gun control, period. As you stated "..we just don't have the facts to allow us to make broad valid policy judgments here".  

I would challenge your risk/reward logic in regards to assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. By your logic, we should either eliminate airplanes or make them all smaller to reduce their lethality when they crash. Your example, not mine. Seriously?  ;)

Kidding aside, thanks for trying to keep it data-based and not venturing too far into the domain of ideology. I'm sure we have differing opinions on the validity of the data referenced on the sites I linked, and of course on whether the data tend to "lean" in any particular direction.

PS: Please stay away from the Brady websites, NRA and Mother Jones. You'll just get a headache.

...is that if we do nothing, we will have the same results.  I agree with much of what is being said here.  I disagree with the idea that the framers had unlimited, individual gun ownership as an absolute right.  The amendment leads off with, "...in order to maintain a regulated militia..."  Why would they include that phrasing if they wanted every person armed with no regulations as the NRA would have us believe.  I also realize that the toothpaste is already out of the tube on that one.  The NRA is a lobby group for gun manufacturers and they are far too powerful for us to pass any common sense gun legislation.  
Then our only option is to accept these horrific acts.  Let's not pretend to be shocked or surprised, because that would be quite disingenuous.  If 20 white 6 and 7 year olds and 6 of their teachers being gunned down can't move the discussion, this certainly won't.  And I blame the democrats on this one for being gutless, spineless and demonstrating the inability to stand by their convictions.  That's why they lose so much.

Pretty sure it wasn't for Germans in the 30's or Russians from 1900-1960. There are many countries that have done this on a smaller scale as well.  
       History shows the first set to conquering a population and surpressing it is to disarm it. The Romans did it very well for a long time.  
       If you trust your police force and government enough to let them take your means of defense today you won't have it in 20 years when you need it. Because EVERY government fails eventually, even if it is just citizens taking back power.

Register Now!