Is it me or does the new NY gun laws actually ban all handguns now?

[jackstar7]

Anxiety? Funny thing is, I can guarantee if I tell a stranger about the pistol in my pocket, they're going to be about 100x more anxious about it than I am. To me it's just equipment, which I am proficient in using and have a wealth of knowledge concerning the legality of said use; and which I earnestly hope I never have to use. Emotionally it's a symbol of honest preparedness, independence, and level of responsibility that I've attained.

To them it's a threat, despite the fact that I haven't threatened them in the slightest. Unless the other person is also one of the rare CCW holders I've encountered, in which case we high five, start talking guns and get a few weird looks from the people around us. (ZOMG they're having fun talking about guns? NO WAI!!!)

So you don't have a CCW for protection then? Just ego?

The anxiety isn't about the gun you have. It's about the victimization that you feel you must be prepared for by having a gun on you.

 

[Matt1970]

No. He tried to kill them but couldn't because a knife has very limited reach and limited deadly capacity. The school kids fought him off with broomsticks. You can't fight off a firearm with broomsticks.

It was on the exact same day on the exact same target by pretty much the same perpetrator profile. Difference was weapon.

So now knifes can't kill people. I like that. You are really reaching now to support your theories.

 

[micrometers]

So now knifes can't kill people. I like that. You are really reaching now to support your theories.

A knife didn't kill on Dec 14th. It wounded 23.

An AR15 rifle killed 26 and wounded 3 on the exact same day in an almost identical attack.

It's weird how you guys get all inventive about how somehow guns aren't deadly weapons that inflict incredible damage on people.

 

[chucky2]

I'm not going to go back and look at it...

...but did not someone post something earlier showing death stats that included firarms (broken out by type) and knives? Were not knives far more than the firearms?

 

[micrometers]

It is ludicrous if in response to a random generalized threat like mass shootings you start carrying a gun around. There is a very low chance of you specifically being in a shooting and having your gun on you. Especially if you have kids, there is a good chance that your kid might be injured by the gun you own. If you carry the gun around like you carry your keys, there will be times when you are careless, just like how you occasionally will lose your car key or wallet. THe gun is a substantial responsibility and you'd have to be aware of your gun constantly.

It is perfectly reasonable for a government to take broad societal-wide action in response to a mass shooting, because government can affect the big picture in a way that the individual cannot.

 

[micrometers]

I'm not going to go back and look at it...

...but did not someone post something earlier showing death stats that included firarms (broken out by type) and knives? Were not knives far more than the firearms?

nope

http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/333_murder_victims_circumstances_and_weapons_used.html

guns are 3x more than stabbings.

 

[TallBill]

It is ludicrous if in response to a random generalized threat like mass shootings you start carrying a gun around. There is a very low chance of you specifically being in a shooting and having your gun on you. Especially if you have kids, there is a good chance that your kid might be injured by the gun you own. If you carry the gun around like you carry your keys, there will be times when you are careless, just like how you occasionally will lose your car key or wallet. THe gun is a substantial responsibility and you'd have to be aware of your gun constantly.

It is perfectly reasonable for a government to take broad societal-wide action in response to a mass shooting, because government can affect the big picture in a way that the individual cannot.

So you're pro rape and pro robbery then? The societal approach that New York has taken will save zero lives.

 

[Agent11]

So you don't have a CCW for protection then? Just ego?

The anxiety isn't about the gun you have. It's about the victimization that you feel you must be prepared for by having a gun on you.

You do not need to feel 'victimized' to have ccw. That's a rather stupid argument in fact.

It's about exercising a right and responsibility. Protecting yourself, your family and community should the need arise. Feeling victimized is not required as a motivation at all.

 

[micrometers]

So you're pro rape and pro robbery then? The societal approach that New York has taken will save zero lives.

As much as you are pro mass murder.

Rape and robbery are specific localized threats that in some cases I do believe warrant obtaining a gun.

I've said many times that I believe that individuals have the right to obtain *a* handgun for self protection

 

[Agent11]

How generous of you.

 

[Matt1970]

A knife didn't kill on Dec 14th. It wounded 23.

An AR15 rifle killed 26 and wounded 3 on the exact same day in an almost identical attack.

It's weird how you guys get all inventive about how somehow guns aren't deadly weapons that inflict incredible damage on people.

Knifes were used to overtake 4 passenger jets on 9/11 which ultmately lead to the deaths of 3000 people.

BTW, who said guns aren't dealy weapons?

Guess what it was the killed 168 people including 19 children under the age of 6 on April 19, 1995?

 

[chucky2]

nope

http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/333_murder_victims_circumstances_and_weapons_used.html

guns are 3x more than stabbings.

Firearms are more according to that link I see. Do you realize that if you add up the stabbing and blunt instruments, and subtract out handguns from firearms, that those are more than the remainder of firearms? (and this is using that link data...who knows if it is truly correctly accurate or skewed in some way)

I take it you are a proponent of banning anything that can be used to slice, stab, or bludgeon to death someone?

Chuck

 

[micrometers]

Knifes were used to overtake 4 passenger jets on 9/11 which ultmately lead to the deaths of 3000 people.

BTW, who said guns aren't dealy weapons?

Guess what it was the killed 168 people including 19 children under the age of 6 on April 19, 1995?

You've missed the distinction between political terrorist operations that are mostly bombings, and the psychotic outbreaks without a cause which result in school shootings.

 

[chucky2]

People are killed, what more distinction do you need? Is not a murder a murder?

 

[werepossum]

That's a good thing, the Supreme Court already ruled blanket handgun bans unconstitutional so it should be easy to get this law struck down.

For now. We're literally one heartbeat away from your right to bear arms meaning "but only when state or federal government puts one in your hands."

 

[werepossum]

Also, one has to look at that list of rampage murders, which is not inclusive at all, and easy see a pattern. In areas where guns are prevalent, the murders are typically done with guns. In areas where things like farming tools are prevalent, the murders are committed with FARMING TOOLS. The death counts aren't wildly different between the regions despite one region that favors guns vs bombs vs fires vs sickles.

Pretty much. Evil is evil and will use whatever is handy. And with a disarmed population, whatever is handy is good enough.

 

[micrometers]

People are killed, what more distinction do you need? Is not a murder a murder?

China: 23 injured.
America: 26 dead.

Difference? weapon.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Pretty much. Evil is evil and will use whatever is handy. And with a disarmed population, whatever is handy is good enough.

Machetes are a weapon of choice, used the world over. The real problem is that life is cheap, easily disposed of when desired.

 

[jackstar7]

You do not need to feel 'victimized' to have ccw. That's a rather stupid argument in fact.

It's about exercising a right and responsibility. Protecting yourself, your family and community should the need arise. Feeling victimized is not required as a motivation at all.

I believe you misread what I wrote. It's the fear of being victimized that prompts the desire for a ccw. Perhaps you still find my logic unsound, but I'd like to hear more about how it is a responsibility.

 

[Agent11]

All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.

When carrying a concealed weapon you are undertaking a great responsibility, not only to carry safely, but also to only draw and use your weapon when it is lawful to do so.

 

[irishScott]

So you don't have a CCW for protection then? Just ego?

The anxiety isn't about the gun you have. It's about the victimization that you feel you must be prepared for by having a gun on you.

The bolded is the core of the misunderstanding here. I don't "need" a gun to feel safe. I "want" a gun to be prepared. Much like how I don't "need" a spare tire 99% of the time, but I drive with one regardless and I know how to change a tire if necessary. That doesn't mean I'm constantly in fear of a flat tire.

There is no sense of victimization or potential victimization in my day-to-day life. That said I've been in 3 or 4 situations in my life where I extricated myself as much by luck as good judgement. If my luck had gone sour in any of said situations, I would have liked a gun. In one case I even bluffed having a weapon to get two would-be muggers to back off (it's amazing how much a direct look and an intentionally visible hand in the pocket can do). This was walking through an area I've literally walked through hundreds of times at the same time of day without issue.

Shit happens, and it's best to be reasonably prepared. I find those who call me paranoid have lived very privileged, very safe, or very lucky lives, and that's saying something given that I come from an upper-middle class household.

And just to put one final nail in your assumption, if I felt I "needed" a gun to go outside in the morning, I'd leave town/the country or else carry something a lot bigger than a little sub-compact .380; and I'd certainly stop obeying no-carry zones.

 

[chucky2]

China: 23 injured.
America: 26 dead.

Difference? weapon.

You continue to post this. Do you understand what sample size means?

 

[Cerb]

Even worse, and this is only my opinion, but the good guy will actually have a harder time because I would think he would be under far more stress than the shooter. The shooter came prepared not only to die but to take his own life, the good guy is in a desperate panic trying to save his own and the lives of others.

I've been trying to find it the last few days, but it may have been behind a college paywall when I first came across it, because I've had no luck. Anyway, I had come across a study, either done directly by, or partly aided by, the FBI, IIRC, which came to that empirical conclusion. Individual non-LEOs, and LEOs, both were very likely to have garbage marksmanship when the flight or flight response kicked in, no matter what happened at the range, but they would hold to tactical/crisis training pretty well, on average, if they had any (including police, combat vets, regular folks with IDPA experience or tactical shooting training, etc.).

A knife didn't kill on Dec 14th. It wounded 23.

An AR15 rifle killed 26 and wounded 3 on the exact same day in an almost identical attack.

It's weird how you guys get all inventive about how somehow guns aren't deadly weapons that inflict incredible damage on people.

No, you just don't read. What we've been trying to explain the whole time, is that almost all guns are roughly equal, in terms of being deadly weapons to murder people with. More or less dangerous is all about the person with the gun, not the gun.

It is ludicrous if in response to a random generalized threat like mass shootings you start carrying a gun around. There is a very low chance of you specifically being in a shooting and having your gun on you.

The more people carrying, the higher the the likelihood that one of them will be there, with a good chance to do something. You won't. One of the millions like you might.

Especially if you have kids, there is a good chance that your kid might be injured by the gun you own.

Bullshit. Again, look at the stats. It's not only very rare (thankfully), but always a matter of negligence. If you are a responsible gun owner with very young children, you should keep the guns safe from them. Once they are old enough to learn the most basic arithmetic, they should be educated about them. If a typical 6 year old gets to shoot a watermelon, they won't get any aspirations to dangerously play with guns.

If you carry the gun around like you carry your keys, there will be times when you are careless, just like how you occasionally will lose your car key or wallet. THe gun is a substantial responsibility and you'd have to be aware of your gun constantly.

That's why only paranoid women tend to carry guns like that. You should carry a gun in a holster that fits well, can't itself come out, and does not allow the gun to accidentally come out of it.

If you've ever taken any firearms training course, and been around others with guns, you'd know that awareness of your gun is essential, along with the whole four rules. The average child of a hunter knows these things (in my state, if he wants to legally hunt, he must go through a class teaching them, as well, so there's no excuse). The average child of a cop knows these things. The average boy scout knows these things.

It is perfectly reasonable for a government to take broad societal-wide action in response to a mass shooting, because government can affect the big picture in a way that the individual cannot.

Can they positively influence the big picture, by performing knee-jerk measures with no good evidence behind them? No. But a wealth of politicians, like you, want to see guns as the problem, and will twist and ignore reality to fit your feelings. I'm not pro-Obama, but at least his recent checklist has some good points that actually try to get to the problem, which are the people.

 

[Doppel]

I laugh at this part of the law:

http://www.governor.ny.gov/2013/gun-reforms-faq

Q: Going forward, what magazines can I buy?

A: As of April 15, 2013, only magazines that can contain 7 rounds or less will be sold in New York, including permanently modified magazines..

Q: How many rounds can I put in my magazine today?

A: Ten. Starting on April 15, 2013, you are limited to putting in seven rounds, unless you are at an incorporated firing range or competition recognized by the National Rifle Association or International Handgun Metallic Silhouette Association, in which case the limit is ten.

-----

Ergo, it will be legal to use a 10 round mag at competition--it's just that you won't be able to legally buy one.

 

[OCGuy]

Supreme court already struck this down. Why states waste money on this crap is beyond me.