<p>^</p>
<p>Do you think that is a good law?</p>
<p>I watched Rachael Maddow interview the Wheeler family last night. I felt like someone was kicking me in the gut throughout that interview. Those poor parents of their murdered first grader are going through Hell on earth.</p>
<p>Then I read the comments here and elsewhere about why we should not even consider an increase of gun regulation and I get very angry. Because I do believe that reduced (NOT ELIMINATED) access to man-killing weapons of war will reduce the deadliness of random attacks.</p>
<p>I don’t think these emotions are going away, for me or for many others. The gun lobby had better prepare themselves for the fact that a majority of us are sickened by what we have seen. The current rate of massacre is simply unacceptable. Random victims are paying too high a price just so a relatively few extreme gun enthusiasts can have access to whatever they please, whenever they please.</p>
<p>emilybee,</p>
<p>I honestly don’t know. For me, the only laws that are good laws are those that are useful. If there are statistics showing that the law had some sort of positive impact and it wasn’t overburdensome, then I think it would be useful and good.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LOL, this “NOT in my back yard” mentality is laughable. So, the New Yorkers pass their problems by selling high power magazines to some one out of state? I drive through three states when I was commuting from NJ to CONN, the lunatics in Montvale, NJ still can go to Orange County in 15 min and do “target shooting” in elementary schools in NYS. </p>
<p>How effective is this law in NY?</p>
<p>^ lots of NIMBY going on. Do they also include trash to go with that?</p>
<p>It is as effective as Chicago law.</p>
<p>“For me, the only laws that are good laws are those that are useful. If there are statistics showing that the law had some sort of positive impact and it wasn’t overburdensome, then I think it would be useful and good.”</p>
<p>“Due to hunter education, hunting accidents have decreased by over 50% during the last twenty years making hunting one of the safest recreational activities.”</p>
<p>[Hunter</a> Education](<a href=“Home”>Hunter Education Courses) </p>
<p>I am going to assume we can extrapolate from this data that hunter education reduces the danger of accidents by a significant number. But, if I need to, for sake of this argument, go to every state’s website to get the number, I will (since a quick google showed that every state has an education program.) </p>
<p>I would think that if gun education was required for anyone purchasing a gun - no matter what kind that the danger of gun accidents would also see a significant decrease. </p>
<p>So, would you be in favor of a regulations requiring an education course and certification for anyone wanting to purchase a gun? </p>
<p>Also, why would education classes be burdensome? If someone has enough leisure time to go out hunting, I would think they have enough time in their schedule to fit in an education course.</p>
<p>“LOL, this “NOT in my back yard” mentality is laughable. So, the New Yorkers pass their problems by selling high power magazines to some one out of state? I drive through three states when I was commuting from NJ to CONN, the lunatics in Montvale, NJ still can go to Orange County in 15 min and do “target shooting” in elementary schools in NYS.”</p>
<p>This is why we need national gun control laws but people like Texaspg disagree. They don’t quite seem to understand that their state’s loose regulations can effect people in states with tighter restrictions. They also don’t seem to care that it does. :(</p>
<p>Yep. Blame it on Texas. Ignorance is bliss. I can sell some frys with that.</p>
<p>Why doesn’t NewYork shut the factory down if they dont want guns? </p>
<p>If they are making the guns, it is Texas’ problem?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So you were disgusted at the way she exploited the situation to advocate for laws that wouldnt have made the slightest bit of difference in Newtown?</p>
<p>Did she call for restrictions on violent movies? Violent video games? Gangster rap?</p>
<p>“Why doesn’t NewYork shut the factory down if they dont want guns?”</p>
<p>I have no problem with that but I don’t know if the state can make it illegal to manufacture specific types of guns even if the state prevents their purchase. I assume 2nd Amenders would have a huge hissy fit if NY tried to do it. </p>
<p>It’s not Texas’s problem they are making the guns. It’s is Texas’s problem if the guns the company makes and are purchased in Texas end up in NY. Funny, you all want tighter boarder security with Mexico to keep things you don’t like from coming into your state.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are people still pretending that these things really matter?</p>
<p>Why haven’t the Newtown police released more information about Adam Lanza? It’s been a month now. Had he seen any mental health providers? Had he ever been on any medications, was he on them at the time of the shooting? Had he kept a diary or any notes or documents showing violent fantasies? What did the autopsy show? What did the toxicology show? </p>
<p>This sort of information came out rather quickly in the Aurora movie theater case.</p>
<p>They are all for regulations. They still want the income from guns.</p>
<p>I read that he was wearing ear plugs when they found him. The police speculate that he was used to wearing the ear plugs at the shooting range so he put them in that day too.</p>
<p>I suggest that we mark our calendars for one year from the date NY passes the tightened law. Then we can come back on CC and look at the stats. As someone said, they support laws that have the intended result.</p>
<p>Violent crimes nationally are down and have been going down as a trend for many years. This is in spite of the assault gun ban not existing at a national level for a portion of that time. I believe it is due mostly to the overall aging of the population. </p>
<p>I believe that high population density urban areas will continue to have significantly higher rates of violent crime including murders and murders by guns than less dense areas. I don’t believe that the strenuousness of gun control in the local region or in the state will have a positive correlation to these urban rates.</p>
<p>I believe mass killings not related to gangs or as a part of other criminal endeavors will continue to occur. I believe that the perp in these mass killings will still be determined to be mentally/emotionally unbalanced in almost every case.</p>
<p>I believe that there will still be an ongoing friction between those who are for banning and those who are for arming.</p>
<p>I believe that there might be a ruling from the US Supreme Court that finds constitutional bans or near bans of semi-automatic weapons (not sure about whether they would allow a ban on semi-automatic handguns at least in the home) or at least the ban on high volume clips. I believe the recent ruling on banning posession of handguns in homes will continue to be the law.</p>
<p>I believe that the Supreme Court’s ruling on the restrictions on violent video games correctly observes that we were and are a nation steeped in violence (conquest of indigenous people, rebellion against England, wars against Mexico, civil war). The violence issues in content of games, media and art will likely continue to have to be addressed by parental vigilance.</p>
<p>“So you were disgusted at the way she exploited the situation …?”</p>
<p>Even sadder than 1st Graders being ripped apart by military munitions is the lack of compassion for the families of the victims. Can’t let anyone who’s lost a child speak publicly now, can we? That would be unfair to gun owners.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then the converse must be true- more guns in circulation will increase the number of deaths. </p>
<p>Look at this chart:
<a href=“http://thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/nics-checks1-e1358113198884.jpg[/url]”>http://thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/nics-checks1-e1358113198884.jpg</a></p>
![http://thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/nics-checks1-e1358113198884.jpg[/url]](http://thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/nics-checks1-e1358113198884.jpg%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
<p>-Background checks (which correlate to gun sales) were steady for years at around 8 million and change.
-At the 2006 mid-term elections when Nancy Pelosi start talking about reinstating the “Assault” Weapons Ban, checks spike and reach 10 million for the year.<br>
2006: 10M
2007: 11.2M
2008: 12.7M
2009: 14.0M
2010: 14.4M
2011: 16.5M
2012: 19.6M</p>
<p>The <em>average</em> per year had been about 8.5M prior to 2006. In December 2012 alone it was 2.8M!</p>
<p>Just looking at December if obvious that the spike in checks and sales is being driven by this gun grabbing rhetoric. People are rightly suspicious that there is a lot of un-democratic backroom shenanigans and “executive order” nonsense going on.</p>
<p>Doing the mathimatication, the spike in gun sales by this rhetoric has resulted in an excess sale above the baseline of **39 million guns **.</p>
<p>If we accept the premise that the mere existence of guns in the marketplace results in more deaths, then the gun grabbing policy is responsible for all sorts excess deaths. If the 39M excess guns were attrited out at the rate observed by the buy back programs (see here: [Gun</a> buybacks popular but ineffective, experts say](<a href=“http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/12/gun-buybacks-popular-but-ineffective/1829165/]Gun”>Gun buybacks popular but ineffective, experts say)) it would take 1741 years to take out the excess guns caused by the gun grabbing rhetoric. </p>
<p>Conclusion: If you accept the poster’s premise, advocating for new guns laws is the worst thing to do.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yep. And, I predict that as long as the unemployent rate remains high among the youths in chicago, we will see increased gun violence. And, if the city ever becomes more prosperous again, the murders will decrease, as well. Until then, though, gun violence is just a symptom.</p>
<p>“They are all for regulations. They still want the income,”</p>
<p>Or perhaps they know there is no way they can pass a law banning Remington from manufacturing the gun in NY.</p>
<p>“It’s not Texas’s problem they are making the guns. It’s is Texas’s problem if the guns the company makes and are purchased in Texas end up in NY. Funny, you all want tighter boarder security with Mexico to keep things you don’t like from coming into your state.”</p>
<p>It is actually hilarious. There is zero evidence of Texas guns in New York when NY makes their own darn guns. Shouldn’t they stop production before they start blaming a state that is 1400 miles away?</p>