New York State - First Out of the Gate on Gun Control Laws

[xbuzzerx]

Yes we are pretty much jumping down rabbit holes at this point.

I don't have a problem with waiting periods as long as they aren't abused AND there is provision to ensure someone whose life is at risk can obtain a gun if they need it. The efforts at perfecting the instant check system is the best way of addressing that. The same goes with psychological checks.

If someone's life is at risk why is their first recourse going to Wal*Mart for a gun and not to the police? I don't understand that scenario you're bringing up.

[Stardreamer]

If someone's life is at risk why is their first recourse going to Wal*Mart for a gun and not to the police? I don't understand that scenario you're bringing up.

How many abused spouses are killed yearly despite a restraining order and the promise of increased police patrols?

[tigerfan482]

How many abused spouses are killed yearly despite a restraining order and the promise of increased police patrols?

The same amount that are killed yearly with the current gun laws we have. What burden of proof do you need to have to prove your life is in danger for the instant access to guns? Obviously, many people with guns already feel their life is in danger because it's the argument they use on why they should be allowed unfettered access to firearms, accessories, and ammunition.

[xbuzzerx]

How many abused spouses are killed yearly despite a restraining order and the promise of increased police patrols?

This is a problem with the general leniency surrounding restraining orders and the failure of law enforcement to act in some cases even after multiple offenses or pronounced threats. This isn't a problem with gun laws.

[andysayshi]

How many abused spouses are killed yearly despite a restraining order and the promise of increased police patrols?

The majority of US spousal gun deaths are inflicted by a partner who owns a gun in the victim's home. Are you suggesting BOTH partners should own guns, for protection from each other?

[Stardreamer]

This is a problem with the general leniency surrounding restraining orders and the failure of law enforcement to act in some cases even after multiple offenses or pronounced threats. This isn't a problem with gun laws.

Which is why the individual cannot be denied the right to take steps to defend themselves by an extended waiting period. That is the interpretation of the US courts not just my opinion.

[Stardreamer]

The majority of US spousal gun deaths are inflicted by a partner who owns a gun in the victim's home. Are you suggesting BOTH partners should own guns, for protection from each other?

No. Are you suggesting this is the ONLY possible scenario? A threatened spouse having a gun is exercising her LEGAL right to defend herself, the spouse attempting to kill her is not protecting anything but is breaking the law.

[xbuzzerx]

Which is why the individual cannot be denied the right to take steps to defend themselves by an extended waiting period. That is the interpretation of the US courts not just my opinion.

I disagree. I doubt that the number of otherwise fatal crimes stopped by individual gun owners comes anywhere close to the number of gun accidents, gun suicides, and accidental shootings... not even mentioning crime.

[andysayshi]

No. Are you suggesting this is the ONLY possible scenario? A threatened spouse having a gun is exercising her LEGAL right to defend herself, the spouse attempting to kill her is not protecting anything but is breaking the law.

No. I'm contending that if NEITHER of them had guns, the likelihood of one being shot by the other would be zero. And the likelihood of either of them dying during a domestic dispute would also be much lower.

Half of all female homicides in the US are by gun.

Women killed in US gun homicides are 5 times more likely to be killed by their spouse or intimate partner than by a stranger.

Women who live in a home with a gun are 7 times more likely to be killed by a gun.

http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/domviofs.htm

[Stardreamer]

I disagree. I doubt that the number of otherwise fatal crimes stopped by individual gun owners comes anywhere close to the number of gun accidents, gun suicides, and accidental shootings... not even mentioning crime.

To directly quote the latest circuit court ruling, the Supreme Court has ALREADY ruled in Heller that the exercise of the right cannot be dictated by casualty counts. Law abiding citizens have a right to have a gun for self defense even IF it can be conclusively shown that banning the availability of guns would reduce gun violence overall.

[Stardreamer]

No. I'm contending that if NEITHER of them had guns, the likelihood of one being shot by the other would be zero. And the likelihood of either of them dying during a domestic dispute would also be much lower.

Half of all female homicides in the US are by gun.

Women killed in US gun homicides are 5 times more likely to be killed by their spouse or intimate partner than by a stranger.

Women who live in a home with a gun are 7 times more likely to be killed by a gun.

http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/domviofs.htm

Doesn't matter, the Supreme Court has already ruled she has a right to have a gun for self defense and that cannot be denied simply because of statistics.

[andysayshi]

The impasse in our back and forth is because we are sailing different rivers. You're on the realist side, debating the realities of law, and the possibilities that provides. I'm on the eternal optimist side, debating the realities of the facts, rather than the implementation of change.

Never the Twain shall meet.

You are, of course, correct and justified in all your statements. It's just frustrating, from a bystander's perspective, that dead children and tens of thousands of dead Americans every year is STILL not enough for the US to actively seek real solutions, blinded by a centuries old amendment to a document that had no way to foresee the current state of the nation, and incapable of recognising that the same justification for that amendment may indeed justify another amendment today.

I think I've trodden the depths of this issue enough today. I just wanted to say that I DO understand your point of view and the inherent logic and realism of your points.

[Stardreamer]

The impasse in our back and forth is because we are sailing different rivers. You're on the realist side, debating the realities of law, and the possibilities that provides. I'm on the eternal optimist side, debating the realities of the facts, rather than the implementation of change.

Never the Twain shall meet.

You are, of course, correct and justified in all your statements. It's just frustrating, from a bystander's perspective, that dead children and tens of thousands of dead Americans every year is STILL not enough for the US to actively seek real solutions, blinded by a centuries old amendment to a document that had no way to foresee the current state of the nation, and incapable of recognising that the same justification for that amendment may indeed justify another amendment today.

I think I've trodden the depths of this issue enough today. I just wanted to say that I DO understand your point of view and the inherent logic and realism of your points.

Thank you but it is not as hopeless as you might think. Pretty much all that the administration is trying to do is doable. You may never be able to get to a gun free world but you can make it safer. BUT that requires the sides of the issue to meet halfway in REASONABLE compromise. One thing that will help will be pro-gun folks to stop seeing any attempt to implement reasonable regulation as the start of a slippery slope to gun confiscation AND anti-gun folks to stop giving them reason to believe it by celebrating every reasonable regulation passed with cries of 'this is just the first step'. Both sides have this inherent distrust of the others motives and the name calling and accusations don't help, it all just winds up making them both dig in.

[frankfrank]

One variable I don't hear at all, when comparing other nations to the U. S.: When these other countries initially had some kind of gun bans, how many guns were in the hands of the public before the band [bans. BANS. Damned typos] went in? I would be willing to think far below the average of one gun per capita as we have here. I'm not sure how the logistics would work here, with such a high number of guns currently out there.

"The gubmint" could just go and search every residence and every place of business, and have access behind every door in the country, and search every crawlspace, but it would take all of that (and the resulting complete authoritarian usurpation of all privacy) to find all the illegal or non-registered guns. As a bonus, the government would be seizing stashes of money, "child pornography" (yes, those cute pictures of your cute four-year-old son Billy playing in the pool), etc. - also no doubt putting millions on secret dossiers if anything "strange" is found. No doubt going in cahoots with the IRS to spot those who have stuff that's too "extravagant" for what they're reporting on their taxes, etc. Have fun putting your stuff back together after the agents have thrown your shit all over the place, torn stuff up.

Maybe bringing in the availability of undocumented guns from crime syndicates and gangs is a red herring (and I'll admit that I'm one who said that criminals can get guns that way) - the JUB quote function is being wonky and not working again and somebody said it in the last 29 hours - but if most guns became illegal, just wait...a whole new massive crime syndicate would be formed, spewing out guns.

Even SCOTUS Justice Anton Scalia, who some of us consider the most "right-wing" of all the Justices in the history of that august body, has said that it is NOT inappropriate to have some sensible regulations on firearms.

[xbuzzerx]

Thank you but it is not as hopeless as you might think. Pretty much all that the administration is trying to do is doable. You may never be able to get to a gun free world but you can make it safer. BUT that requires the sides of the issue to meet halfway in REASONABLE compromise. One thing that will help will be pro-gun folks to stop seeing any attempt to implement reasonable regulation as the start of a slippery slope to gun confiscation AND anti-gun folks to stop giving them reason to believe it by celebrating every reasonable regulation passed with cries of 'this is just the first step'. Both sides have this inherent distrust of the others motives and the name calling and accusations don't help, it all just winds up making them both dig in.

I don't like seeming unnecessarily contentious Stardreamer... but I think the notion that what drives gun advocates the most being that gun control proponents are too wild and too extreme would be a very distant second to... gun nuts in this country are against ANY restriction, believe in a slippery slope that any restriction will lead to confiscation of everything, and they have a massively powerful lobby operating on that premise at the behest of gun manufacturer dollars.

[Stardreamer]

I don't like seeming unnecessarily contentious Stardreamer... but I think the notion that what drives gun advocates the most being that gun control proponents are too wild and too extreme would be a very distant second to... gun nuts in this country are against ANY restriction, believe in a slippery slope that any restriction will lead to confiscation of everything, and they have a massively powerful lobby operating on that premise at the behest of gun manufacturer dollars.

If you pay close attention and Kuli will tell you they are not against any restriction, just against all up bans or anything that prevents the legal use of firearms. The NRA doesn't oppose background checks for example, they only oppose waiting periods when the check could be done instantly. Registration has been resisted out of the fear that it was a prelude to confiscation, if that fear could be assuaged by writing safeguards into the law you would likely find them willing to compromise.