NY Proposal to Screw Gun Owner's a Little Bit Further

[thaiboxerken]

Would you shoot such a 6 year old if he/she threatened you?

There is a reason some people fight so hard to keep their semi-automatic weapons.

 

[tyr_13]

We are not talking about 50% over reporting, but closer to 90%, so yes it does seem unreasonable.




The ratios suggest that it is closer to 90% over-reporting.

You've again substituted defensive gun uses with justifiable shootings and suggesting that because justifiable shootings know were low, that the uses would have to be smaller than that. It's the other way around. Justifiable shootings would be a subset of defensive uses.

 

[Polaris]

There is a reason some people fight so hard to keep their semi-automatic weapons.

And that ain't it, but please, try again.

 

[jimbob]

You've again substituted defensive gun uses with justifiable shootings and suggesting that because justifiable shootings know were low, that the uses would have to be smaller than that. It's the other way around. Justifiable shootings would be a subset of defensive uses.

Nope.

For example, in reported attempted rapes only a small fraction use a gun for defence, yet the estimate for DGUs thwarting rapes exceeded the estimated total number of rapes.

Similarly, the estimated number of wounding or killings from DGUs was about 130k, which is more than the number of known shootings from all causes.

Then you have the Zimmerman and Sailors effect where fearful people think they are using a gun defensively when there is no actual threat - just an innocent person.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

A more effective BATF would help there, as would better stings and enforcement by local authorities. New York does a reasonably good job of cracking down on underage and ID less purchases of alcohol and tobacco, at least against big business. It wouldn't surprise me if a lot of the 'thefts' of firearms from shops are actually illegal sales.

I have to admit that none of my firearms are in a safe, although all of the ammo is. I'm a renter and don't have room for one here, so mine are kept at my family's place. They are still each behind at least three locks. Someone would have to break into my mother's house (one or two locks), break into my old room (another lock), break through the gun rack lock (a hacksaw or sawsall, or perhaps ripping it off the wall with a crowbar or something) and then there is a gun lock on each gun, although at that point they could just take the locked guns. My set up is to avoid accidental use. If someone wanted my guns for a crime there are easier ways to get a Henry .22 or a Rugar 10/22.

So does the fact that they aren't in a safe make me an irresponsible gun owner? My brother has all but one of his guns in a safe, that one because it's too tall for the safe. Still, to get that one you'd have to go through two locked doors or a window and a locked door.

I only have one firearm right now, and it's securely stored in an IWB "safe". My set up for other firearms is still available to me should I desire to purchase another long gun.
My spare room has a closet that abuts the bathroom. I have a hardened steel chain that goes through a hole I cut in the wall, and wrapped around a cast iron stand pipe. I have a military surplus high security padlock that goes through the chain. Burglars will have to come prepared at least with a set of bolt cutters in addition to any other tools required to break in. You can't shim a HS padlock, there is no place to insert the shim.They're almost impossible to pick, too.
I also remove some vital part from any firearm I store, and then store it in a separate secure place. A firing pin is good, a bolt is better. This will at least slow them down considerably as they have to first free the firearm from its mounting, then search for a small, easily hidden part, or they don't get bupkiss.
Replacing certain parts is difficult for criminals. They don't have access to many illegal armourers, and taking a gun to a legal gun repair shop and asking to fit a replacement bolt will raise some eyebrows, especially when there will be a BOLO for such activity.

 

[tyr_13]

Nope.

For example, in reported attempted rapes only a small fraction use a gun for defence, yet the estimate for DGUs thwarting rapes exceeded the estimated total number of rapes.

Similarly, the estimated number of wounding or killings from DGUs was about 130k, which is more than the number of known shootings from all causes.

Then you have the Zimmerman and Sailors effect where fearful people think they are using a gun defensively when there is no actual threat - just an innocent person.

I still don't understand why you believe that supports a 90% over-estimation. You've shown that the estimate of shootings is obviously over-estimated, but you've only shown reason to suspect 90%, and not to prove it. Of course in reporting there will be wildly different outcomes just like in the rape estimates, but that doesn't mean the high end is the correct number.

And again, what does this have to do with this method of gun control? You seem to be arguing that people shouldn't have guns because they aren't used often for personal defense.

 

[Nessie]

.......

My point is, there are roads we can explore without having to punish the law-abiding citizen. I've brought this up many times before, but it seems to get lost in the piles of these threads.

I think the reason why so many other suggestions are raised about gun control is because of that failure.

The non gun owners are getting desperate and angry at the failure to reduce the gun problem. So they come out with more and more extreme suggestions. That seems like a totally understandable reaction, especially with the number of mass shootings and dead children (or both with Sandy Hook), along with the overall number of dead.

Since the NRA is hell bent on going way too far the other way, I think that until there is an organisation which has large support with gun owners for better enforcement of existing laws, the USA is stuffed. Frustratingly, those who contribute nothing to the problem by not possessing or buying a gun are sidelined.

 

[Ziggurat]

I think the reason why so many other suggestions are raised about gun control is because of that failure.

The non gun owners are getting desperate and angry at the failure to reduce the gun problem. So they come out with more and more extreme suggestions. That seems like a totally understandable reaction, especially with the number of mass shootings and dead children (or both with Sandy Hook), along with the overall number of dead.

It's an understandable reaction, but it is not in fact a reasonable one. Gun violence has been on the decline. And there are social pathologies which lead to violence that are far more important than gun laws (such as the growing number of fatherless children), and which should be solved anyways.

Treating Sandy Hook as a watershed event is like taking the Summer of the Shark seriously. It's a tragedy for those directly involved, but it shouldn't make a difference to public policy.

 

[Nessie]

I think it is perfectly reasonable to say to the gun industry, dealers and owners get your act together and demand present laws are properly enforced. If they cannot do that, then it is again perfectly reasonable to say, if you don't we will.

You would think that an incident like Sandy Hook would at least spur the moderate sensible gun owners into action.

 

[Giz]

I
The non gun owners are getting desperate and angry at the failure to reduce the gun problem. So they come out with more and more extreme suggestions. That seems like a totally understandable reaction, especially with the number of mass shootings and dead children (or both with Sandy Hook), along with the overall number of dead.

The problem is that from the very first, the "solutions" that have been suggested by gun-control advocates (thinking mainly of Congress, New York etc rather than just the JREF) are all emotional knee-jerk proposals that would:
1) Heavily punish/inconvienience/prohibit legal, responsible gun owners
2) Will do next to nothing to reduce gun violence (either by gangs, which is most of the problem, or even by spree killers).

This, understandably, makes the responsible gun owners "desperate and angry". They are being scape-goated and punished despite not being the problem.

If only the gun-control advocates had approached the issue logically, basing their proposals on a a reasoned analysis of what would best address the issue and not fear-mongering of evil black rifles (with their sinister barrel shrouds).

Progress will only be made when the "antis" control their irrational fears and debate the causes and solutions in a logical manner.

I
Since the NRA is hell bent on going way too far the other way, I think that until there is an organisation which has large support with gun owners for better enforcement of existing laws, the USA is stuffed.

The NRA certainly doesn't know how to preach outside of the choir. Also, the existing laws should be enforced far more stringently. I am amazed that prohibited people can fill out a 4473 and then, when denied, not get prosecuted. How can we justify new laws when we won't even use the existing laws to get felons off the street after they have tried to buy a gun.(!)

I
Frustratingly, those who contribute nothing to the problem by not possessing or buying a gun are sidelined.

Or: frustratingly, the fact that the vast amount of gun owners are responsible is sidelined by the "antis".

 

[WildCat]

Chicago and DC don't have a international border with the rest of the US.
Do we know how much worse the situation in those two cities might have been without what little control they do have?

Why don't those suburbs bordering Chicago and DC which have far more lax gun control have the same or higher homicide rate than Chicago and DC?

 

[WildCat]

We are not talking about 50% over reporting, but closer to 90%, so yes it does seem unreasonable.




The ratios suggest that it is closer to 90% over-reporting.

No, it doesn't. You're making the assumption that not only does a gun have to be fired to count as a defensive use, the shot has to also wound the perp.

The reality is in most DGU cases the gun is not even fired, brandishing is enough.

 

[Giz]

Why don't those suburbs bordering Chicago and DC which have far more lax gun control have the same or higher homicide rate than Chicago and DC?

Heresy! Repeat after me:

Guns are the problem, not criminals!!
Do we want to use existing laws to jail criminals who try to buy guns - NO!
Do we want to stop law-abiding citizens having guns - YES!

 

[thaiboxerken]

And that ain't it, but please, try again.

Why not? After all, according to Tri, 6yr old black belts hands and feet are "the deadly."

 

[thaiboxerken]

Guns are the problem, or more precisely, the ease of getting guns is the problem.

 

[WildCat]

Heresy! Repeat after me:

Guns are the problem, not criminals!!
Do we want to use existing laws to jail criminals who try to buy guns - NO!
Do we want to stop law-abiding citizens having guns - YES!

That's about it.

Oh well, I was at least able to find a box of .44 mag today! Still no .22LR to be found anywhere though, the doomsday preppers must be hoarding it all. And I need the .22LR to justify the 2 hour trip to my favorite shooting range. Have everything else now - a case of clays, 175 rounds of 12 ga, and 50 rounds of .44.

Just need to find those elusive .22s!

 

[Polaris]

Why not? After all, according to Tri, 6yr old black belts hands and feet are "the deadly."

Are you suggesting that Tri wants semi-automatic firearms to defend against 6 year olds?

 

[AlBell]

...

Why don't gun owners via the NRA or some other representative body actually come forward with positive proposals to stop idiots from hurting themselves and others?

http://townhall.com/columnists/annc...republicans-should-try-being-popular-n1527482

After the slaughters at Virginia Tech, Aurora, Colo., Tucson, Ariz., and Newtown, Conn., every sentient person knows we need to do something about institutionalizing the mentally ill and -- at the very least -- keeping guns out of their hands.

That happens to be impossible right now. Involuntary commitments even for the severely psychotic went the way of vagrancy laws. Although federal law technically requires background checks to include records of mental illness, the states and mental health industry refuse to provide that information.

Of course, the vast majority of mentally disturbed individuals are not dangerous. But looking at it from the other end, more than half of all mass murder is committed by the mentally ill. Gun ownership doesn't lead to random murder rampages; mental illness does.

And the good news for Republicans is: Democrats will only pretend to support keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous psychotics, while working frantically to gut and undermine such measures. Liberals fear "stigmatizing" the mentally ill more than they fear another mass murder.

Makes good sense even if it is Ann Coulter.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Are you suggesting that Tri wants semi-automatic firearms to defend against 6 year olds?

Yes, because he says 6 yr old black belts have deadly hands and feet.

 

[Nessie]

The problem is that from the very first, the "solutions" that have been suggested by gun-control advocates (thinking mainly of Congress, New York etc rather than just the JREF) are all emotional knee-jerk proposals that would:
1) Heavily punish/inconvienience/prohibit legal, responsible gun owners
2) Will do next to nothing to reduce gun violence (either by gangs, which is most of the problem, or even by spree killers).

Indeed, but there are also sensible proposals. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

This, understandably, makes the responsible gun owners "desperate and angry". They are being scape-goated and punished despite not being the problem.

Thing is there are responsible gun owners who become part of the problem when they do something irresponsible. All guns start of legal, but due to very lax and careless activities by gun makers, dealers and owners, millions have ended up illegally possessed. So sorry, but the responsible gun owners may have to make sacrifices. Those who don't own a gun at all are having to make sacrifices as it is.

If only the gun-control advocates had approached the issue logically, basing their proposals on a a reasoned analysis of what would best address the issue and not fear-mongering of evil black rifles (with their sinister barrel shrouds).

Progress will only be made when the "antis" control their irrational fears and debate the causes and solutions in a logical manner.

Progress can be made by ignoring the extreme demands of both sides. At the moment the extremes are being allowed to spoil and dominate the debate. That suits only the pro gun side who get to keep all their guns and lax regulations.

The NRA certainly doesn't know how to preach outside of the choir. Also, the existing laws should be enforced far more stringently. I am amazed that prohibited people can fill out a 4473 and then, when denied, not get prosecuted. How can we justify new laws when we won't even use the existing laws to get felons off the street after they have tried to buy a gun.(!)

Maybe the existing laws have failed because they were rubbish in the first place?

Or: frustratingly, the fact that the vast amount of gun owners are responsible is sidelined by the "antis".

How can they be described as sidelined when they have tons of guns and lax gun controls?