<p>The people wanting more gun control seem to be the ones who are more paranoid than the people who don’t want it.</p>
<p>“Wonder why Texas has far less gun crime with all the so called gun nuts than those states with actual laws banning them.” - Texaspg</p>
<p>Musing would be, “I wonder if Texas has far less gun crime…”</p>
<p>Musing my arse.</p>
<p>According to one source on NY State law:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For real???</p>
<p>Also, NY state has a law allowing carry. BTW-- does anyone know if the NY state effort to toughen gun laws passed today?
<a href=“http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/14/cuomo-new-york-guns/1833271/[/url]”>http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/14/cuomo-new-york-guns/1833271/</a></p>
<p>“On your’ other post, I don’t think that many of you are wanting to take armed guards out of casinos, or banks…”</p>
<p>Where are all these banks that have armed guards in them? I haven’t seen an armed guard in a bank in years.</p>
<p>Posted by emilybee-It matters because he presented his original assumption (that looser gun laws reduces the amount of gun crime and is why Texas has FAR LESS gun crime than states with tighter regulation) as if it were fact, which it is not. </p>
<p>There are FBI statistics that suggest this. IMHO, I believe that morality and culture play a bigger part than the laws ever will.</p>
<p>“The people wanting more gun control seem to be the ones who are more paranoid than the people who don’t want it.”</p>
<p>Oh, you mean like Gabby Giffords, Brady’s wife, parents of children killed at Virginia Tech and Aurora and Newtown? Paranoid people like those?</p>
<p>I think you’re missing the big picture here. Effective counter-violence programs take a lot of time and cost a lot of money. Neither is conducive to political expediency. So if SOMETHING is going to be done (politically), availability of guns is the logical focus. The NRA recognized this almost immediately.</p>
<p>Nrds, I am horrible at punctuation, that’s all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Non sequitur, but if I must - “No work of man is perfect.”</p>
<p>07Dad, and that has to do with what?</p>
<p>NYS doesn’t have a law banning all guns. I don’t believe there is any state which does. </p>
<p>"Gun laws in New York regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the state of New York in the United States.</p>
<p>New York is one of the strictest states in the nation on the purchase, possession or carrying of handguns…These laws ban handgun possession and provide exemptions, including individuals licensed to carry handguns, or to possess them for other reasons, including sports, repair, or disposal.</p>
<p>New York is a “May-Issue” state, in that the individual licensing official (typically a local police chief or sheriff) has discretion to issue a license or permit to possess handguns, or carry a concealed firearm. The licensing authority may require the licensee go through firearms training and education, or under what conditions permit holder can possess handguns or carry a concealed weapon."</p>
<p>More specifics in the article but due to TOS I cannot post as it would be to long. </p>
<p>[Gun</a> laws in New York - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_New_York]Gun”>Gun laws in New York - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>^ lol</p>
<p>I am more worried about bird flu than getting shot by a psycho NRA Texan.</p>
<p>“I believe that morality and culture play a bigger part than the laws ever will.”</p>
<p>The issue in a nutshell. Well done.</p>
<p>Newhope - I guess what you’re saying is that you believe that a gun ban or much stricter regulations would protect/would have protected children from this atrocity.</p>
<p>I just disagree. Gun bans don’t work - look at Mexico where only the outlaws roam the streets with guns and terrorize the people.</p>
<p>And I don’t see much evidence that stricter regulations on law-abiding citizens do much to quell it either.</p>
<p>The 2nd amendment doesn’t say that, by the way.</p>
<p>It’s an emotional topic on both sides. There’s no way you and I will agree. I see the solution as something much different than you do.</p>
<p>In fact, we see each other’s solution as COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE to the cause - so there probably won’t be much meeting in the middle.</p>
<p>cromette - You are forgiven for not reading all 600 posts in this thread. Several times I’ve stated that Connecticut’s strict gun laws had no effect whatsoever on the Newtown massacre (or for that matter, the lesser known CT mass-murders in Newington and Windsor). Gun bans in Washington DC and New York City and Chicago have done little to end gun-related homicides in any of those places.</p>
<p>That said, it’s likely that some action will be taken in response to the Newtown slaughter. And since effective anti-violence programs are costly and time-consuming, the government will choose a response that’s quicker and simpler … something like banning the sale of high-capacity magazines.</p>
<p>Please, cromette (and also Bay)–both of you are bringing back your already-refuted claims from the weekend. Yesterday (or was it Saturday?) we had reached common ground on some common-sense ideas (mandatory background checks, closing gun-show loopholes, etc.). WHAT IS WRONG WITH BACKGROUND CHECKS? We know why the NRA opposes them–because they’re bad for business. Unless you are a gun dealer, I can’t imagine why you as a law-abiding gun owner would object.</p>
<p>And there’s little reason to defend unlimited availability of military-style automatic weapons (or “assault weapons” or whatever I am supposed to call them) and high-capacity clips. As has been said numerous times on this thread, there are restrictions on most of our constitutional rights. The Second Amendment does not confer special rights or privileges. That’s the “well-regulated” part.</p>
<p>As for Newtown, if Nancy Lanza had kept her weapons RESPONSIBLY–as someone with her level of training in firearms should have known to do–those kids and teachers might be alive today. Same goes for the firefighters who were killed on Christmas Eve in Webster, NY, by the convicted murderer who got two women to give him their guns. THESE ARE NOT VICTIMLESS CRIMES. Those women should be held responsible, and Nancy Lanza should have been if she hadn’t paid with her life instead. So let’s start holding people accountable for the carnage–and the resulting need for EMS and police and ER and mental-health services–that occurs because of their irresponsible behavior.</p>
<p>
This is interesting, and to me, educational. Some years back two academics published a report that said that 2.5 million crimes were prevented each year due to the use of guns by “good guys” based on survey results of people who claimed to have done so. It included the assertion, repeated here, that
What makes this interesting is that every attempt to verify the results from objective data failed. The number of people who claimed to have shot a bad guy dwarfed the number of people treated for gunshot wounds, for example. If 25 million such events happened every decade we’d all know of several involving people we know - but few if any of us do. The study was clearly reflecting people articulating “dream events” as fact. And those were the people who have guns. (Plus, if you all read “the signal and the noise” like I recommend, you’ll immediately recognize the statistical flaw which virtually guaranteed a nonsensical result in a study of rare events.)</p>
<p>Of course, the “gunners” as they refer to themselves, ate up the 2.5 million statistic. Every real world example of a crime thwarted by a good guy with a gun was repeated, drooled over, and presented as proof of the value of good guys carrying guns around. The Clackamas Mall incident is the most frequently cited recent example, despite the fact that there’s actually no reliable evidence that the shooter was even aware of the presence of the 22 year old lionized by the gunners because he had a gun at the scene (although he did not fire it and apparently was hiding in a department store when the bad guy went off and, having jammed his rifle, committed suicide in another location.)</p>
<p>What makes this all interesting is that it displays the facility with which gunners seize upon a narrative which supports the fantasy of being a good guy who thwarts crime with his gun despite the lack of credible evidence that it is a realistic belief. This isn’t a “Texas” thing or a “Hollywood” thing - it’s inherent in the psyche of people who typically want to be a “good guy.” </p>
<p>Trayvon Martin has been vilified ruthlessly in gunner circles, because his delegitimization is necessary to support the fantasy. George Zimmerman is the prototype “good guy with a gun.” Neighborhood watch, looking out for his community, trying to thwart crime - all good guy stuff. I don’t buy the idea of him being racist - it doesn’t seem to fit. But the outcome of that event, while utterly predictable in general if not specifics, is anathema to the good guy with a gun fantasy. He misunderstood the situation and his gun led him into a place where only bad things were going to happen.</p>
<p>People don’t live in “theory.” They live in the real world. And we’re all flawed and imperfect. In a sense, we’re all George Zimmerman. Put more guns in more people’s hands, more bad things will happen. The people who think that’s wrong have, in my opinion, an unrealistic impression of people’s competence and good judgment.</p>
<p>That’s why I consider people who flaunt weapons to be narcissistic. I don’t think they’re likely to be as competent, rational, and unwaveringly correct in their assessment of the situation they’re in - 24/7 - as they apparently do.</p>
<p>I have acquired my private stalker on this thread? Including their &utts in conversation?</p>
<p>As NY State addresses tighter gun control, the workers at the Remington plant in Ilion, NY sent people to Albany to protest the efforts because that plant manufactures assault rifles.</p>
<p>[Workers</a> say NY gun control law would cost jobs](<a href=“http://newyork.newsday.com/business/workers-say-ny-gun-control-law-would-cost-jobs-1.4446019]Workers”>http://newyork.newsday.com/business/workers-say-ny-gun-control-law-would-cost-jobs-1.4446019)</p>
<p>WOW the irony.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, I was talking about people on this thread.</p>
<p>I like the idea of having references like NYS requires. I would also be in favor of having a urine test that shows chemical imbalances in the brain that costs less than a hundred dollars as well.</p>
<p>“As NY State addresses tighter gun control, the workers at the Remington plant in Ilion, NY sent people to Albany to protest the efforts because that plant manufactures assault rifles.”</p>
<p>This has been an on going issue. They can sell what they manufacture in those states who don’t care that their citizens can have assault weapons, or move their plant somewhere else.</p>