New York passes toughest gun laws in the nation

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I don't know, but I remember being in D.C. late in the evening one night, and not being able to find a working pay phone. It seemed there were burning barrels on almost every corner and I could hear the constant sound of breaking glass, interspersed with the occasional gun shot. Needless to say, I decided that was not a safe place to be, and headed back to the beltway.

To the other side where concealed carry is allowed. DC has some of the strictest gun controls in the country and were the subject of the Heller decision. Seems like it should be safer than Vermont.

(compare crime rates, not "death rates") Incidentally it also kind of blows holes in the "Vermont has a low crime rate because of low population" BULLSH*T doesn't it? TWO hunting accidents can kick us up several points on the "rate"

Edited January 16, 2013 by Gary and Alla

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

What's with DC?

Strictest gun controls, no concealed carry for good guys. DC was the subject of the Heller Decision, the gun laws were so bad that the SCOTUS had to rule on them. They are still the strictest in the nation.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Strictest gun controls, no concealed carry for good guys. DC was the subject of the Heller Decision, the gun laws were so bad that the SCOTUS had to rule on them. They are still the strictest in the nation.

But yet the criminals still have guns and do not give them up or pay attention to the law.. How odd

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

People talk about cars killing so many people a year. Look what they've done to make cars safer. They've put rules in place, safety requirements, etc. Just to drive a car, you need a license. You need your eyes checked, there's a written exam, someone has to take you out and you have to prove that you can operate that vehicle properly.

Ok...Is the state telling you that you may not purchase an SUV or truck as they are more dangerous than a passenger vehicle? Is the government limiting the amount of fuel in your tank? Is your local sheriff carefully weighing whether you have need to travel by car before handing you a license? Do you get a background check when you buy a car?

Yet when anyone wants to put rules and regulations on gun ownership, people cling to the constitution without wanting a serious discussion about it. I've had serious discussions....and I have quantified what is reasonable at what is not based on logic.

We get it. You have the right to keep and bear arms. Does that mean there should be no rules about the kind of arms you bear? it depends on the restrictions and if they have logic without greatly interfering with people's rights. Or how many weapons you keep? Does this really matter? Humans have two hands, can only carry so much weight, and shoot better with only one firearm in their paws.

Why can some crazy guy stockpile a bunch of weapons and walk into a building and open fire? Why isn't it happening in other countries at the same rate? Video games?

Because other countries have something called socialized medicine where they get the attention they need.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Usui Takumi

[himher 634]

Don't leave out THEIR violent crime rate. It's up there with Canada at 1508 per 100000, 3x the national average. You guys are at #3 by the way behind Maine and ND

District of Columbia 1,508 (

Maine 116

North Dakota 128

Vermont 137

New Hampshire 139

South Dakota 171

Utah 224

Rhode Island 228

Wyoming 240

Idaho 247

Montana 254

Kentucky 263

Strictest gun controls, no concealed carry for good guys. DC was the subject of the Heller Decision, the gun laws were so bad that the SCOTUS had to rule on them. They are still the strictest in the nation.

Edited January 16, 2013 by himher

[Ban Hammer 13,400]

An owner caught at home with eight or more bullets in a magazine could face a misdemeanor charge.

"It is well-balanced, it protects the Second Amendment," said Senate Republican leader Dean Skelos of Long Island.

until the magazine police show up to check one's home.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Someone who is murdered by a gun or dies accidentally from a shooting or blows their brains out with a gun all have one thing in common. They're all dead and if there were no guns they wouldn't be.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

To the other side where concealed carry is allowed. DC has some of the strictest gun controls in the country and were the subject of the Heller decision. Seems like it should be safer than Vermont.

This was around 1988, pre-Heller, and I have no idea what the firearm laws were for Vermont, or D.C., back then. I never felt like I was in eminent danger, let's just say my situational awareness was at its peak levels. Of course, given a choice between having a pacifier under my coat so that could stand my ground and blow away any local that chose to confront me, or simply going elsewhere, since what I was looking for didn't seem to be available at that particular time in that particular location, my manhood was not diminished by heading down the road.

[himher 634]

Someone is needlessly victimized by violent crime in Mass at a rate 150% higher than the state with the highest poverty rate but highest death by shooting rate (Mississippi) because of the misguided idea that preventing people from defending themselves makes them safer.

If people had access to means of self-defense in Mass the way they have access to means of defending themselves in Mississippi then this needless victimization would not have to occur.

When Mass (or anywhere else) can demonstrate that their strict gun laws can make their streets safer then people who have safer streets then people in Mass do may sit down and listen. Otherwise, the numbers do not add up.

Someone who is murdered by a gun or dies accidentally from a shooting or blows their brains out with a gun all have one thing in common. They're all dead and if there were no guns they wouldn't be.

Edited January 16, 2013 by himher

[scotinmass 588]

Someone is needlessly victimized by violent crime in Mass at a rate 150% higher than the state with the highest poverty rate but highest death by shooting rate (Mississippi) because of the misguided idea that preventing people from defending themselves makes them safer.

If people had access to means of self-defense in Mass the way they have access to means of defending themselves in Mississippi then this needless victimization would not have to occur.

When Mass (or anywhere else) can demonstrate that their strict gun laws can make their streets safer then people who have safer streets then people in Mass do may sit down and listen. Otherwise, the numbers do not add up.

Ok you've convinced me. It's really scary here in MA. So much violent crime because we don't have enough guns. Please help us. Tell us how many guns I need to buy to be safe?

[himher 634]

It is my opinion, personal, that one of our problems here in this country is people who tell other people what they need to be doing. With this in mind, I believe I will limit my discussion to outcome-based analysis of what happens where and allow the folks in your state to otherwise make up their minds for themselves while they stay out of my home and out of my business.

SO and with this in mind: On an outcome basis, I will make one comment. Zero does not appear to be the right number. Our founders did not speak only of "right", they also spoke of "duty" to keep yourself and the community around you safe.

"We have a high level of violent crime, so what?" pretty much summarizes your problem up there.

Ok you've convinced me. It's really scary here in MA. So much violent crime because we don't have enough guns. Please help us. Tell us how many guns I need to buy to be safe?

Edited January 16, 2013 by himher

[spookyturtle 9,466]

There are a few places in MA that have more crime than others. Check out the demographics of these areas. And it's not that hard to buy a gun here either.

[himher 634]

I believe that it is a safe bet, a sure thing, that those areas are not represented by nation-building statesmen with vision either. It is not even on the distant radar screen for us to accept that those non-statesmen take any action, due to their personal failures, that will in any possible way turn our communities into theirs.

There are a few places in MA that have more crime than others. Check out the demographics of these areas. And it's not that hard to buy a gun here either.

[justashooter 430]

Yet when anyone wants to put rules and regulations on gun ownership, people cling to the constitution without wanting a serious discussion about it.

We get it. You have the right to keep and bear arms. Does that mean there should be no rules about the kind of arms you bear? Or how many weapons you keep?

the SCOTUS already had a serious discussion about this issue. they decided that the militia purpose was a significant part of the 2nd Amendment right and affirmed it. so, any able bodied citizen has the right to ownership of firearms equal to what the standing army carries, just as was so back in the moment in which the Amendment was written.

this is affirmed in the acceptance of the Miller decision, which prohibited the use of "unusual or dangerous weapons" which miller defined as those already regulated under NFA 1934. non NFA weapons are regarded as "in common use" by SCOTUS re Miller, so may not be banned as an entire class. "assault weapons" now make up 15-20% of all firearms in the USA, and they are not controlled by NFA 34, so they are obviously "in common use". their standard capacity magazines are similarly protected by this language.

i am quite surprised that the existing NY, Mass, CT, and HI bans (holdovers from 1994) have not already been struck down, in light of the Heller and MacDonald rulings, but gun advocacy groups have been focused on concealed carry rights in the interim. this new NY ban will prolly go to SCOTUS within 2 years, and will be struck down. forcing all 1994 relics to follow.

this is just the beginning, my friends.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

The Supreme Court held:[43]

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

...the Court ruled a total ban on operative handguns in the home is unconstitutional, as the ban runs afoul of both the self-defense purpose of the Second Amendment – a purpose not previously articulated by the Court – and the "in common use at the time" prong of the Miller decision: since handguns are in common use, their ownership is protected.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

the SCOTUS already had a serious discussion about this issue. they decided that the militia purpose was a significant part of the 2nd Amendment right and affirmed it. so, any able bodied citizen has the right to ownership of firearms equal to what the standing army carries, just as was so back in the moment in which the Amendment was written.

Times have changed. Guns have changed. Society has changed. It only makes sense for rules to change with them. Anyone who tries to apply something written in the 1700s to what's happening in 2013 has issues. That's completely illogical.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Evylin