New York enacts gun-control law, first since Newtown attack

Comments (14)
sandman839 wrote:

The guns are not the issue. First you have to make sure that the people who are buying guns can and should have them. This includes private sales. Second, along with a criminal back ground check there should be a mental health evaluation. Third if you own guns and you don’t secure them when you are not at home and they get stolen, you should have consequences. The guns that are being used to commit crimes are not the ones owned by gun owners who legally own them.

Jan 15, 2013 3:04am EST  --  Report as abuse
lensmanb wrote:

Just give the general population some more prescription drugs to treate them for anxiety or depression. Make the drug companies some dollars, keep the people who really need treatment out on the street, yeah! Years ago people with diagnosed mental problems were put away. I had an uncle who worked in one of the state hospitals. People convicted of crimes did their time, not let out early on parole. Our society’s “goody two-shoes” have created this problem with their liberal agenda. It’s not the gun that kills anyone. Restrictive gun control will only lead to law abiding citizens not being able to protect themselves should they desire to own a gun. I guess Louisville Slugger better ramp up production before someone declares a baseball bat to be a deadly weapon….wait, it won’t be the bat that kills…will it?

Jan 15, 2013 8:18am EST  --  Report as abuse
Ashau wrote:

Gun control; it’s hip, it’s cool, it’s pop, it’s what happenin’ now. Regardless of what the politicians say, it’s also not going to reduce crime in New York one bit. If anything, it will make it more dangerous for law-abiding citizens as it will reduce the concern criminals have of encountering an armed victim.

First, let’s get one thing straight; all this talk of banning “assault weapons” is ignorance. Assault weapons are fully automatic weapons used by the military. In NONE of the recent shooting cases were “assault weapons” used. They were military-appearing semi-automatic sporting rifles.

Now, to the inconvenient truth; it’s easy for politicians to chant the mantra of gun control. It’s something tangible, relatively easy and very visible to their voting constituents. It is also quite ineffective. As the article states, New York (along with Chicago) already has some of the toughest gun control laws on the books. I would ask; why haven’t those already enacted laws done anything to curb violence?

Here’s the multi-part answer.

First; because the courts do not effectively enforce those laws or enact the mandatory sentencing those laws call for as punishment.

Second; trading guns for tennis shoes is ludicrous. Not one individual with serious criminal intent will turn surrender his/her gun….not one. If they did, they would just go out and steal or otherwise illegally acquire another one. The ones who will abide by and be hurt by further anti-gun laws are the law-abiding citizens who are not a threat to anyone other than a criminal or nutcase bent on doing them harm. If one of these individuals can’t get a gun, he/she’ll use a knife, a hammer, a baseball bat, a rock, or even a car to kill.

Third: The focus should be on removing from society those determined to be dangerous to society, be they professional violent criminals, or mentally unstable individuals who have demonstrated intent to harm others. It’s harder. It’s not a sexy, catchy mantra. It’s not a politically correct move. But, it’s the only real way to curb the growing violence on our society.

So, instead of politicians screaming for more gun control in order to garner votes, they should be screaming for better enforcement of the adequate laws already on the books (more laws that are ignored are no better than the current ones that are ignored). They should be screaming for stiffer sentencing for individuals convicted of violent acts (And not just gun-related crimes). They should be screaming for much more thorough and stringent evaluation of unstable individuals who have demonstrated violent tendencies.

It’s the only way to reduce violence in our society. If politicians are unwilling (as in don’t have the guts) to call for and enact removal of dangerous people from the general population, they, and their constituents, better just prepare for more of the same because taking guns away from law-abiding citizens will not solve the problem.

Jan 15, 2013 8:25am EST  --  Report as abuse
Ashau wrote:

Gun control….it’s hip, it’s cool, it’s pop, it’s what happenin’ now. But, regardless of what the politicians say, it’s also not going to reduce crime in New York one bit. If anything, it will make it more dangerous for law-abiding citizens as it will reduce the concern criminals have of encountering an armed victim.

First, let’s get one thing straight; all this talk of banning “assault weapons” is ignorance. Assault weapons are fully automatic weapons used by the military. In NONE of the recent shooting cases were “assault weapons” used. They were military-appearing semi-automatic sporting rifles.

Now, to the inconvenient truth; it’s easy for politicians to chant the mantra of gun control. It’s something tangible, relatively easy and very visible to their voting constituents. It is also quite ineffective. As the article states, New York (along with Chicago) already has some of the toughest gun control laws on the books. I would ask; why haven’t those already enacted laws done anything to curb violence?

Here’s the multi-part answer. First; because the courts do not effectively enforce those laws or enact the mandatory sentencing those laws call for as punishment. Second; trading guns for tennis shoes is ludicrous. Not one individual with serious criminal intent will turn surrender his/her gun….not one. If they did, they would just go out and steal or otherwise illegally acquire another one. The ones who will abide by and be hurt by further anti-gun laws are the law-abiding citizens who are not a threat to anyone other than a criminal or nutcase bent on doing them harm. If one of these individuals can’t get a gun, he/she’ll use a knife, a hammer, a baseball bat, a rock, or even a car to kill. Third: The focus should be on removing from society those determined to be dangerous to society, be they professional violent criminals, or mentally unstable individuals who have demonstrated intent to harm others. It’s harder. It’s not a sexy, catchy mantra. It’s not a politically correct move. But, it’s the only real way to curb the growing violence on our society.

So, instead of politicians screaming for more gun control in order to garner votes, they should be screaming for better enforcement of the adequate laws already on the books (more laws that are ignored are no better than the current ones that are ignored). They should be screaming for stiffer sentencing for individuals convicted of violent acts (And not just gun-related crimes). They should be screaming for much more thorough and stringent evaluation of unstable individuals who have demonstrated violent tendencies.

It’s the only way to reduce violence in our society. If politicians are unwilling (as in don’t have the guts) to call for and enact removal of dangerous people from the general population, they, and their constituents, better just prepare for more of the same because taking guns away from law-abiding citizens will not solve the problem.

Jan 15, 2013 8:27am EST  --  Report as abuse
ChuckK wrote:

What happened after the UK enacted the 1997 Firearms Act?

“The latest (UK) Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year (2008) – a rise of 89 per cent.”

All of you touting how stricter gun control laws reduce crime ought to read up on what actually happens. It only takes a couple minutes of research.

BTW – how did these bad guys get it into their heads that using guns is the best solution to their problems? Think about it. They certainly didn’t dream up their ideas in Sunday school.

Jan 15, 2013 11:09am EST  --  Report as abuse
MetalHead8 wrote:

Im actually pretty dissapointed in Rueters, for they didnt report the full story. There limiting gun capacity to 7 rounds. Thats right. just 7. a Crazed gun man kills people with a rifle, So NY tells those who concealed carry, they guns are now illigal. Most pistols like Sigs, Glocks, Smith and wisson have built for 10+ rounds. Nobody makes low capacity Magazine, theres no market for them. the only pistols that have 7 rounds, are overpriced revolers, and Single stack 45s like the 1911. 9mm (smaller bullets, means bigger clip capacity) which is less deadly then 45s, are common amogst female shooters how cant handle the massive recoil of larger rounds.

heres the link
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/nation_senate_passes_landmark_gun_BOFWiBtkXJWTZh8i3WQWyI

Jan 15, 2013 12:09pm EST  --  Report as abuse
davespc22 wrote:

Let the Law Suits Begin!! I hope NY gets Buried in them!!

Jan 15, 2013 2:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
KyuuAL wrote:

Guns are not the issue?

Well, YOU have a gun addiction!

Jan 15, 2013 5:18pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Hedonikos wrote:

Yeah yeah yeah. Gun nuts are flooding the blogs and forums with the same old tired arguments we hear over and over and over. “It isn’t the guns.” “Law abiding citizens can’t protect themselves.” “It is a liberal conspiracy.” Meanwhile the murder continues unabated. Spare us the ignorant BS. Bats are made for playing sports. Cars are made for driving. Knives are made for cooking. Guns are made for… that’s right!!!! Guns are made to kill! That is all they are made for. Wow! What a concept. So when there are children being killed by maniacs with guns, what are the gun nuts answer? More guns! That like saying when there is a fire the way to put it out is with gasoline. And they have the audacity to feed Americans who want this to stop BS that more guns are the answer. Then when we see through their BS they call us every name in the book. Common denominator to all you gun nuts out there. Guns kill. That is why they make guns!!!! Please… get a couple of brain cells and try rubbing them together will you. This isn’t rocket science. Right now I am more concerned about a neighbor with a gun who decides he wants to clean it and accidentally fires it off and it shoots me in the apartment next door. I can protect myself from criminals. I can’t protect myself from every Tom, Dick or Harry who has has to compensate for their manhood by carrying a gun. It is long past time to change the 2nd Amendment. The constitution was designed to make sure we have freedom. When it becomes a detriment to a safe society where children cannot even go to school without getting their heads blown off it is time to make some serious changes. Don’t like it? Then go live in a war zone where you can shoot to kill all you want. But not in the nation I believe in. Not in the nation I spent 6 years fighting for. I will fight to keep it safe. If it means getting the guns out of the hands of gun nuts like the ones spouting off about their “patriotic rights” so be it. I am here to fight for the generations in the future. The children of today. Stuff your 2nd Amendment where the sun don’t shine. You’re part of the problem. Not the solution.

Jan 15, 2013 8:39pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Axepop11 wrote:

Snadman839 your on target there. IN the state of Washington you can not go to a gun show and take a weapon home that day unless you are FFL or CCW and current. No for the mental health issue that is the biggest missing link. Mental health treatment and support is still treat as a dirty under the rugs still. Federal mental health (yes entitlement program) programs are being cut instead of pork defense spending. And the third point about weapons and ammunition storage is part of being well regulated. That would also include in my mind training persons in your house where they are and how to and not to use and store them. Limiting the amount of ammunition in a magazine is statistically (FBI,DOJ) inconsequential. Eliminating assault rifles has been in effect since 1934. Looking like a assault rifle is not the same as performing as one. Get past the emotion and hyperbole and get to the supportable facts while defending our constitution. Listne to the other side talk, what ever side your on.

Jan 15, 2013 8:45pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ldfrmc wrote:

Hunting or self-defense, anyone needing more than 7 rounds either needs glasses or does not know how to handle a gun.

Take away guns and killers will use other weapons? Have yet to hear of twenty 6-year olds being bludgeoned to death by one man with a bat, or rock, or hammer.

Politicians were not “screaming.” Gun-nuts here, are. A lot of whining going on, too.

Chuckie: “Firearm offences” and deaths in the UK include air-guns and imitation firearms that launch projectiles – the majority of injury and death reports. The number of homicides committed with firearms in England and Wales averaged 58 TOTAL PER YEAR FOR THE ENTIRE COUNTRY INCLUDING NORTHERN IRELAND the past nine years to 2011.

Jan 15, 2013 8:58pm EST  --  Report as abuse
PeterH001 wrote:

I just want to point out to Ashau, who said above that “all this talk of banning “assault weapons” is ignorance. Assault weapons are fully automatic weapons used by the military. In NONE of the recent shooting cases were ‘assault weapons’ used. They were military-appearing semi-automatic sporting rifles.” Well, it is you is ignorant I guess. The standard issue US military M16 does NOT fire fully automatic, only semi-auto and three round burst.

Jan 16, 2013 1:10am EST  --  Report as abuse
PeterH001 wrote:

Sandman839 is right on the money. It is not the types of guns people buy, nor the capacity of the magazines, but HOW people purchase them. There should be no gun shows whatsoever. Getting a gun should be a process, not an afternoon trip to the gun store.

Jan 16, 2013 1:14am EST  --  Report as abuse
lyricsbylucas wrote:

Gun Control v. Sexual Assault

Deaths in one year from rape victims, who commit suicide,
Are more than there are from school shootings, worldwide,
However, The U.S. Commander-In-Chief continues to hide,
The growing number of attacks in the military w/a blind eye.

A photo-opt was more than he & Governor Cuomo could pass,
But Oregon Sheriff Tim Mueller vows restrictions won’t last,
He claims all future laws that in any way attempt to regulate,
“Certain magazines and firearms” he will not dare to violate.

Federal gun laws if they change in a way with he disagrees,
Whereas, it will violate the 2nd Amendment of this country,
Saying, “Americans must not allow, nor shall we tolerate…”
Was it not the regime of King George that failed to liberate?

Guns don’t kill anybody until in the hands of those deranged,
And signing new restrictive gun laws will not force a change,
Allowing criminals to have more firepower than the innocent,
Will increase the opportunity for more crimes, not prevent.

Not one single law is ever signed or proposed by any President,
Stopping military sexual assaults maybe due to embarrassment?
Because, if the head honcho fails to control his soldiers in arms,
How can they propose any measure to keep civilians from harm?

Yes! Tragic events at Columbine, Virginia Tech & Sandy Hook,
And any center for higher learning where guns diminish books,
If we take a look at the shooters in these unthinkable incidents,
These killers would have been able to acquire guns in any event.

Limiting the type of weapons & the number of magazine rounds,
As crooks have unlimited numbers of guns & ammo is not sound,
It’s like going on an African Safari for big game with a BB Rifle,
Mr. Obama it’s the bad guys not the good guys you want to stifle.

Jan 17, 2013 12:51am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.