The Big Gun Control Thread

Maybe they'll also add to the bill that for semiautomatic weapons, you are legally required to delay one full second between each round fired.

/sarcasm

Tkyl wrote:

If this is the case, how does this bill actually solve anything. Is someone whom is already going to consciously kill people going limit his magazines to only 7 rounds each, when they are capable of holding more?

I don't know if the magazine limits will solve much. Getting rid of all thirty round magazines in the state may not change the situation when people can buy them across the border in Ohio or PA. It's a problem inherent with interchangeable magazine weapons, but they might not have had the votes to get rid of all weapons of that type. So they did a half-measure instead.

I think that side of the new law is the part that will piss people off the most while having the least practical impact. Other aspects of the bill, like require registration of all AR-15s and their brethren, licensing renewal provisions, background checks for all ammunition purchases, etc. may do more.

I couldn't find the exact wording of the bill, but from what I could find:
In 1994, they made a law limiting magazine size to 10, and grandfathered existing magazines w/ a higher capacity (the ban was based on the manufacturing date, so it sounds like one could buy a 30 round magazine in 2010, provided it was manufactured no later than 1994). This new law rescinds that grandfathering, and lowers the magazine size to 7, but grandfathers existing 8-10 capacity magazines, provided they're only loaded with 7 rounds. I found nothing stating that the 10 round magazines have to be modified to only be able to hold 7, so that part's apparently going to work on the honor system. :/

... or you can just drive across the Delaware river and buy a 100-rounds drum magazine, no questions asked.

Full text is here.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

... or you can just drive across the Delaware river and buy a 100-rounds drum magazine, no questions asked.

So long as it's not found. The ban's on possession, not purchasing.

Farscry wrote:
Bear wrote:

I think back to some of the "janitors" we had when I was in school and I can't help but think "HOLY f*ck"!

That was my thought too. I worked with them over one summer for my summer job. A couple of them were really good people, the rest... I wouldn't trust them to drive a car safely, much less be able to safely carry and use a firearm.

I interact with a lot of school custodians. This idea terrifies me.

Reading a NY gun owners forum, I want to ask some of the upstate NY AR-15 owners screaming about their loss of constitutional rights whether they are as equally bothered by stop and frisk tactics, racial profiling, warrantless wiretaps, and all the other civil rights issues we deal with each day.

Bear wrote:

I must admit, this made me laugh hysterically even thought it shouldn't have.

I think the thinking went like this:
1. Janitors use brooms and mops
2. Brooms and mops have handles that look like staffs
3. Staff are martial arts weapons
4. Janitors might be ninjas
5. Let's give them guns.

Funkenpants wrote:

Reading a NY gun owners forum, I want to ask some of the upstate NY AR-15 owners screaming about their loss of constitutional rights whether they are as equally bothered by stop and frisk tactics, racial profiling, warrantless wiretaps, and all the other civil rights issues we deal people of color deal with each day.

FTFY, and the answer would be a resounding 'no'.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

... or you can just drive across the Delaware river and buy a 100-rounds drum magazine, no questions asked.

I think Gov. Cuomo (who allegedly is a gun owner) understands that you're never going to stop the shootings. I believe the hope is that we can try to limit the scale of the slaughter. Such is the world we live in.

Is it just me, or is arming the custodial staff the exact wrong thing to do when you just had an incident where a person stole guns from a legal owner and went on a rampage with it? No more looking for guns to rampage on the school! We've made it so you can steal them from the staff onsite!

LarryC wrote:

Is it just me, or is arming the custodial staff the exact wrong thing to do when you just had an incident where a person stole guns from a legal owner and went on a rampage with it? No more looking for guns to rampage on the school! We've made it so you can steal them from the staff onsite!

It is emphatically not just you.

One of the janitors at my high school was involved in a bomb and murder plot, so perhaps not.

This is shot from Reuters showing a firearms class for teachers. It includes shooting at a target of a guy holding a gun to a kids head.

IMAGE(http://s2.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20130114&t=2&i=694080930&w=&fh=&fw=&ll=700&pl=390&r=2013-01-14T214019Z_02_GM1E91C14YI01_RTRRPP_0_USA-GUNS-TEACHERS-TRAINING)

Clearly, this is a very professional operation, because they're covering the hostage situation I've seen in a lot of movies.

What a wasted opportunity by New York to actually do something useful.

I'm increasingly getting the impression that the gun lobby and the NRA and similar organizations are perfectly willing to willfully ignore the concerns and welfare of citizens, gun owners and non-owners alike, in favor of the monetary interests of the gun industry. This strikes me as similar to the language used by copyright holders who say they're fighting for content creators, when they're really fighting for their own pockets and then stab actual content creators in the back with their content-gating power.

In this particular instance, use gun owners to fight non-owner concerns in the public square but then legislate in support of gun industries, even if goes against the concern of responsible owners. It feels almost Orwellian, or so it seems to me at the moment.

if only gingrich had won. we could have armed our school kids!

Good grief. I wonder where on a Venn diagram of NRA extremists and 'Birthers' these people would fall?

That literally made me feel sick.

There's a bunch of nutballs on the forums of of our local paper talking about "multiple shooters" and "cover-ups". I'd suggest they'd be the first people to have their mental health evaluated.

As a New Yorker, I don't think anything that was passed is going to solve the problem or reduce gun violence. There's simply no way to get the inordinate amount of weaponry that's out there back and there's no way to insure that it won't wind up in the hands of people like Adam Lanza.

Responsible gun owners aren't the problem, it's the irresponsible ones that are at fault. They're the break in the chain between order and chaos. They're the ones that the lawful owners and the NRA should be targeting their venom at.

How do you close that break? That's the question that everyone needs to answer because if we don't find an answer, none of us will be safe.

lostlobster wrote:

That literally made me feel sick.

It should. I didn't get literally sick from it, but I definitely found it disgusting.

The latest ad from the NRA:

I especially like how they paint the most threatened occupants of the White House in the history of America--up to 30 death threats a day--as elitist hypocrites for having the same Secret Service protection that every president over the last 150 years have had. It's also nice that they ignored the fact that some of their own members were the people to threatened to kill the president and his family.

It was also a nice touch that they equated highly trained Secret Service agents with janitors with guns.

Edwin[/url]]Outstanding example of how to be engaged in precipitating change rather than idle debate.

Was working yesterday and know I'm responding late, but wanted to thank Edwin. Probably my favorite P&C post in a long while.

I know it's the internet and you can't actually hear me right now, but I am cheering.

Oh Jesus, the NRA is going all Focus on the Family.

Remember that episode of South Park where Chef helped the KKK and told them that the best way to get people to support what they really wanted, was to go out in public and state the opposite?

President Obama discusses plans to reduce gun violence http://t.co/aBq8tafu

Edwin wrote:

President Obama discusses plans to reduce gun violence http://t.co/aBq8tafu

Is it too early to say that none of his suggestions will make it through the house republicans? Those guys don't seem in the mood to compromise.

It's not too early. The gun industry has made it clear they have no interest in lowering gun violence, and the house GOP and others will march to their tune. I'd say it's a given they won't pass.

I don't think it's a surprise that we have crazy people living among us but it blows me away that these people ("truthers") are openly willing to link their insanity on their Facebook page. From the earlier discussion on the freaks who are contending that is a hoax, I give you the following:

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/12/27/sandy-hook-huge-hoax-and-anti-gun-psy-op/

Do yourself a favor, skip all the insanity in the article and read the posts below. If you wanted to figure out who shouldn't have guns, that's a great place to start.

Here's my favorite so far:

Sandy Hook was a HOAX, pulled off by ALIENS occupying human bodies. We are dealing with DEMONIC FORCES and their likely (local) origin of the humanoid reptilians is Zionist Israel. THEY had temples built throughout the world and throughout human history, aka ORIFICES of the ANCIENT ALIEN RACE of SATAN, through which THEY absorb human Negative Spiritual Energy (generated by Shekinah - "Shock & Awe"). Humanity is FEEDING the ALIENS through ALIEN-inspired wars, violence (real as well as staged), human suffering and idol worship (inspired by the ALIEN Orifices). Major Orifices are the Capitol in Wash. DC, the Vatican, the WH, the Federal Reserve building in Wash. DC, the Parthenon and other ancient temples as well as museums and libraries throughout the world.

Maybe we should get back to the idea that increased gun regulation needs to go hand-in-hand with better mental health access.