NY tried

[Drakefang]

Well, looks like New York state put some effort into making headway with new gun safety/laws. http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/01/15/3183142/ny-gun-bill-would-toughen-already.html

I only have a couple comments. One, IF a state's or the federal crime rate on major/violent crimes goes up instead of down, will they repeal any laws they've made in order to revert to a previous set of laws in which the crime rate is/was lower? Two, this does nothing to stop criminals and will, at best, potentially remove some deadly weapons from the hands of the insane (whom get them from family or friends). I'll have to be proven this actually makes my family and my neighborhood safer from crime. I don't see it. Also, it does nothing for large clip handguns which seem to be a larger culprit than assault weapons.

[Parkbandit]

Well, looks like New York state put some effort into making headway with new gun safety/laws. http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/01/15/3183142/ny-gun-bill-would-toughen-already.html

I only have a couple comments. One, IF a state's or the federal crime rate on major/violent crimes goes up instead of down, will they repeal any laws they've made in order to revert to a previous set of laws in which the crime rate is/was lower? Two, this does nothing to stop criminals and will, at best, potentially remove some deadly weapons from the hands of the insane (whom get them from family or friends). I'll have to be proven this actually makes my family and my neighborhood safer from crime. I don't see it. Also, it does nothing for large clip handguns which seem to be a larger culprit than assault weapons.

But it's gun control, and therefore you should feel safer.

Don't get bogged down with facts... go with how you feel.

[Whirlin]

-Require a therapist who believes a mental health patient made a credible threat to use a gun illegally to report the threat to a mental health director who would then have to report serious threats to the state Department of Criminal Justice Services. A patient's gun could be taken from him or her.


This is breaching confidentiality... For a job such as a therapist, I think confidentiality is a requirement... There's really already enough pressures on the therapy profession on skirting the line between disclosure and confidentiality. To draw a similarity, it'd be like giving lawyers the ability to put people on the gun control list. Why would people continue to talk to lawyers?

The penalties look pretty weak also. A couple misdemeanors.

I'm also not a fan of adding back privacy with licenses. Owning a gun can be a thread to the surroundings, just like being a sex offender. I understand this was likely a purely political addition to get the current gun owners not to think they're just getting purely hammered... but public record is public record. If gun licenses are public record, why is a map of gun owners any different than looking up how much your neighbor sold their house for? I know that's another thread, but I'm not sifting through 8 pages of off-topicness.

[msconstrew]

This is breaching confidentiality... For a job such as a therapist, I think confidentiality is a requirement... There's really already enough pressures on the therapy profession on skirting the line between disclosure and confidentiality. To draw a similarity, it'd be like giving lawyers the ability to put people on the gun control list. Why would people continue to talk to lawyers?


If a mental health professional believes that someone is a danger to themselves or others, they can violate confidentiality without incurring liability under HIPAA or under any state statutory scheme. Same for lawyers, actually.

So I don't know that a therapist making such a report would be liable as long as the therapist believes that the person's threat was "credible". Of course, if I was that therapist, I would certainly want good documentation about thr credibility, etc.

[subzero]

but public record is public record. If gun licenses are public record, why is a map of gun owners any different than looking up how much your neighbor sold their house for?

You don't really believe providing criminals a map to find guns to steal is the way to go...

[Latrinsorm]

Well, looks like New York state put some effort into making headway with new gun safety/laws. http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/01/15/3183142/ny-gun-bill-would-toughen-already.html

I only have a couple comments. One, IF a state's or the federal crime rate on major/violent crimes goes up instead of down, will they repeal any laws they've made in order to revert to a previous set of laws in which the crime rate is/was lower?I'm willing to talk at great length about this, but for now I will keep it brief. Suppose you're in a moving car, and you hit the brakes. You will still be moving in the direction you were traveling before you hit the brakes, right? Therefore at some time T after you hit the brakes, you will be at a point further on the same path, right? What, if anything, does this tell you about your brakes?
Two, this does nothing to stop criminals and will, at best, potentially remove some deadly weapons from the hands of the insane (whom get them from family or friends).When you say "does nothing to stop criminals", do you mean "prevent criminals from committing crimes" or "prevent criminals from acquiring the specified firearms"?

[msconstrew]

You don't really believe providing criminals a map to find guns to steal is the way to go...

The issue here is not whether Whirlin or I or anyone else believes that the information should be used in that fashion. It is publically available information, period, the end. So if you disagree with the use of the information in that fashion, one of two things needs to happen: 1) public records laws/FOIA requests need to be changed so that the information isn't publically available; or 2) NY State needs to stop gathering the information so that such a list can no longer be compiled. Neither is very likely.

I don't get why everyone is turning this into a "just because you CAN do it doesn't mean you SHOULD do it." Sure, that's true of a ton of things. The fact of the matter is that it's legal to do what the newspaper did. If you disagree with the legality, then try to effect change.

[Ashliana]

But it's gun control, and therefore you should feel safer.

Don't get bogged down with facts... go with how you feel.

Random fact: Nearly all the post 9/11 airline "security measures" pushed through by the Bush administration in establishing TSA are totally for show. "Small government" conservatives know how to do nonsense right.

[AnticorRifling]

Random fact: Nearly all the post 9/11 airline "security measures" pushed through by the Bush administration in establishing TSA are totally for show. "Small government" conservatives know how to do nonsense right.

What's that somehow whatever the topic is it's Bush's fault? No way!

Also I don't think "fact" means what you think it means.

[Ashliana]

What's that somehow whatever the topic is it's Bush's fault? No way!

Also I don't think "fact" means what you think it means.

That would be the joke. I blame everything on Bush, ParkBandit so eloquently said once. Things have to be pointed out for him and his notoriously short memory. He is an old man, after all--it's not like he's an outrageous hypocrite--it's that he just can't remember things that happened during the last administration. But it's okay--I'm here to remind him. :)

[Parkbandit]

That would be the joke. I blame everything on Bush, ParkBandit so eloquently said once. Things have to be pointed out for him and his notoriously short memory. He is an old man, after all--it's not like he's an outrageous hypocrite--it's that he just can't remember things that happened during the last administration. But it's okay--I'm here to remind him. :)

You're projecting, It. You're the outrageous hypocrite here.

IT's cute how you suddenly came out yesterday after another long absense.. the same day your other login ID "suddenly" started posting after 3 years of "lurking". Do me a favor.. quote something from one of your other logins and agree with it.. it's been so long since I've had a good laugh like that time you agreed with your other login, Kierphe. Weird.. all "his" posts are now gone.

By the way.. I'd rather be normal and old than a pole smoker who likes to pretend he's a girl online because it's fun!

[Tgo01]

Most of those things actually sound pretty good, I like the reporting gun theft bit, just seems like a common sense thing.


If a mental health professional believes that someone is a danger to themselves or others, they can violate confidentiality without incurring liability under HIPAA or under any state statutory scheme. Same for lawyers, actually.

Pppphhhbbbbttt. Like lawyers ever do what's right.

[Gnome Rage]

1. At least if mental health practitioners can say they had "good faith" and not be penalized for not reporting. Right? :/
2. A little worried about judge mandated outpatient care - patient right to decide is being infringed here (not that it wasn't already possible to mandate someone to take medication and such but NY's proposal makes it far more reaching)
3. It will decrease the chances that a person (who fears having their guns taken) will seek treatment for a mental illness of any kind.
4. :| overall

CT is trying to get a 50% tax on* ammunition and magazines.

[Parkbandit]

CT is trying to get a 50% tax on* ammunition and magazines.

CT is such a geographically small state that it's stupid to believe that would have any impact on ammunition and magazine sales. Why pay a 50% tax on something when you can go 30 miles and get it for 7%?

[Gnome Rage]

CT is such a geographically small state that it's stupid to believe that would have any impact on ammunition and magazine sales. Why pay a 50% tax on something when you can go 30 miles and get it for 7%?

I mean, I guess that is fair, but I might go with Texas anyways.

[Ashliana]

You're projecting, It. You're the outrageous hypocrite here.

IT's cute how you suddenly came out yesterday after another long absense.. the same day your other login ID "suddenly" started posting after 3 years of "lurking". Do me a favor.. quote something from one of your other logins and agree with it.. it's been so long since I've had a good laugh like that time you agreed with your other login, Kierphe. Weird.. all "his" posts are now gone.

By the way.. I'd rather be normal and old than a pole smoker who likes to pretend he's a girl online because it's fun!

"Other login ID." Right. I don't need another account to tell you that you're full of shit, and you've proven time and time again (by repeatedly, baselessly accusing me) that you can't tell me apart from the dozens of other progressives on the site. But, sure. Continue to rail away against the concept of roleplaying on an Internet forum for a roleplaying game. But then again, we knew you were retarded from the beginning. Herpaderp.

[AnticorRifling]

"Other login ID." Right. I don't need another account to tell you that you're full of shit, and you've proven time and time again (by repeatedly, baselessly accusing me) that you can't tell me apart from the dozens of other progressives on the site. But, sure. Continue to rail away against the concept of roleplaying on an Internet forum for a roleplaying game. But then again, we knew you were retarded from the beginning. Herpaderp.

History is against you on this one.

[Ashliana]

History is against you on this one.

Okay, I'll humor you. Who am I supposed to be this time? Keep in mind this is Parkbandit's fifth or sixth time accusing me of being someone else. Naturally, some random liberal contradicted something he said, so it must be me? Right. I originally created an additional account back in the day to mess with the reputation system, and couldn't keep up the multiple account thing for more than, what, a week before messing up?

In any case, you're a supermod, aren't you? I presume you can see IPs, or whatever login information. Shouldn't you be able to tell? Anyway, sorry to let you down, but I'm not Clyde, or anyone else. And PB is an idiot, regardless.

Edit: :rofl: I see his ongoing meltdown against the guy in Political. So his theory is that I created what--dozens?--of fake accounts and sat on them for years, for the purposes of randomly arguing with him down the road? Oh, old people.

:popcorn:

[Parkbandit]

Okay, I'll humor you. Who am I supposed to be this time? Keep in mind this is Parkbandit's fifth or sixth time accusing me of being someone else. Naturally, some random liberal contradicted something he said, so it must be me? Right. I originally created an additional account back in the day to mess with the reputation system, and couldn't keep up the multiple account thing for more than, what, a week before messing up?

In any case, you're a supermod, aren't you? I presume you can see IPs, or whatever login information. Shouldn't you be able to tell? Anyway, sorry to let you down, but I'm not Clyde, or anyone else. And PB is an idiot, regardless.

Have you or have you not created other accounts on this message board? I know of 4.. but there has probably been dozens.

On the same day you come back for a couple of posts, a new 3 year lurker goes and blows up the political forum with dozens of posts.. I don't believe in coincidences.



Edit: :rofl: I see his ongoing meltdown against the guy in Political. So his theory is that I created what--dozens?--of fake accounts and sat on them for years, for the purposes of randomly arguing with him down the road? Oh, old people.

:popcorn:

There's no meltdown on my part, It. Your the type of drama queer, I mean queen, that enjoys doing things like this to get attention. I suppose creating different personas is probably the result of being unhappy in your big fat hairy body.. when all you really want to be is a someone's special lady.

It's ok... there's always surgery and hormones.

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/Assliana.jpg

[Ashliana]

Have you or have you not created other accounts on this message board? I know of 4.. but there has probably been dozens.

On the same day you come back for a couple of posts, a new 3 year lurker goes and blows up the political forum with dozens of posts.. I don't believe in coincidences.

I didn't "come back," as I never left. I read the forum on most weekdays during downtime at work. I'm pretty sure I've only made three accounts, ever. This one, Kierphe and "CrazyEyesMcKinney" or something like that, which was supposed to be the liberal version of ClydeR, but it wasn't especially funny. I don't know who you think "the fourth one" was, and I rarely post at all these days because there's no point in it.

The liberals already agree with each other and usually don't care enough to post, and the reactionaries on the board are completely hostile to reason. I have no overt desire to participate in the "HURR, let's agree how terrible Obama is, and conveniently pretend George W. Bush didn't exist" threads with you, Jarvan and that Wrath idiot is.


There's no meltdown on my part, It. Your the type of drama queer, I mean queen, that enjoys doing things like this to get attention. I suppose creating different personas is probably the result of being unhappy in your big fat hairy body.. when all you really want to be is a someone's special lady.

It's ok... there's always surgery and hormones.

:popcorn: By all means, keep ranting. I know you're really upset about Romney losing--even in your state--but you need to get a grip on reality. How many separate people have you accused of being me now? You really need to get over this obsession. Also: it's "you're." You'd think someone of your advanced years would know the difference.

[Whirlin]

You don't really believe providing criminals a map to find guns to steal is the way to go...

I know msconstrew made a reply to some of my point... But it's really all in the eye of the beholder.

Of all the readily available public information that is out there, THIS is what people are going to get upset about? With so much as a name and a current address, I'd likely be able to query public records to determine your age, last 3 addresses, determine if you're married and/or have any kids, determine how much you paid for your last few houses, get some good ideas about how much your income has grown over the years... Then to get upset over a binary 'has gun permit' yes/no response. I just need to put it into a bit of context. I'd much rather obscure almost any of the other public records besides owning a gun.

I thought more guns kept people safe against things like home intruders. So entering a house with a gun in it would result in 'proper' use of the gun for self defense. To me, it sounds like something that should be encouraged. Everyone that owns a gun is a responsible, well trained person, right? And that's why we don't need anymore regulation on them.

[Parkbandit]

I didn't "come back," as I never left. I read the forum on most weekdays during downtime at work. I'm pretty sure I've only made three accounts, ever. This one, Kierphe and "CrazyEyesMcKinney" or something like that, which was supposed to be the liberal version of ClydeR, but it wasn't especially funny. I don't know who you think "the fourth one" was, and I rarely post at all these days because there's no point in it.

Those are the ones you were caught playing and were forced to admit.


The liberals already agree with each other and usually don't care enough to post, and the reactionaries on the board are completely hostile to reason. I have no overt desire to participate in the "HURR, let's agree how terrible Obama is, and conveniently pretend George W. Bush didn't exist" threads with you, Jarvan and that Wrath idiot is.

And yet.. you do anyway.



:popcorn: By all means, keep ranting. I know you're really upset about Romney losing--even in your state--but you need to get a grip on reality.

You seriously need to get a grip if you believe I am upset about a Presidential election. Like I repeatedly said, if Obama wins, I profit. And girl, I'm profiting L-A-R-G-E right now. I went from 4 contracts in October '12 to now having 8, with 3 more come March. And that is just 1 business. With Obama actively keeping the economy down, I can pick up houses at pennies on the dollar down here. My only concerns nowadays is inflation with the dollar.



How many separate people have you accused of being me now? You really need to get over this obsession. Also: it's "you're." You'd think someone of your advanced years would know the difference.

Oh NO! I made a typo!

Focus on the little things, Dickmuncher.. it really is all you have.

Well that.. and your alter egos.

[Methais]

"Other login ID." Right. I don't need another account to tell you that you're full of shit, and you've proven time and time again (by repeatedly, baselessly accusing me) that you can't tell me apart from the dozens of other progressives on the site. But, sure. Continue to rail away against the concept of roleplaying on an Internet forum for a roleplaying game. But then again, we knew you were retarded from the beginning. Herpaderp.

Shouldn't you be off playing dress up somewhere?

[Ashliana]

Those are the ones you were caught playing and were forced to admit. I don't recall being "caught" on CrazyEyes. It was a parody account. I don't think I was, but even so.. who cares?


And yet.. you do anyway.

Rarely, I do post. Very astute observation. :clap:




You seriously need to get a grip if you believe I am upset about a Presidential election. Like I repeatedly said, if Obama wins, I profit. And girl, I'm profiting L-A-R-G-E right now. I went from 4 contracts in October '12 to now having 8, with 3 more come March. And that is just 1 business. With Obama actively keeping the economy down, I can pick up houses at pennies on the dollar down here. My only concerns nowadays is inflation with the dollar.

Okay, Dick Morris. You also repeatedly predicted Romney would win. I'm glad you're finding a silver lining in it--good for you. Enjoy the next four years (and likely more, if the GOP isn't forced to evolve).


Oh NO! I made a typo!

Focus on the little things, Dickmuncher.. it really is all you have.

Well that.. and your alter egos.

Enjoy becoming totally unhinged and ranting at random people who aren't me of being me--for some reason. (Because, if they're disagreeing with you--and they're not someone else you know--naturally they must be me?)

Did someone mention you're a mod? I didn't know that. I presume that you, or at least someone above you--Anticor? Kranar?--has the ability to set your paranoid delusions to rest with an IP lookup or some other tool. "Ashliana consents," you can tell them. Look it up. I don't care. I'm not anyone else, no matter how much of me your delusional thinking sees in every random person you don't know. Words don't do your stupidity justice.

[Ashliana]

Shouldn't you be off playing dress up somewhere?

Shouldn't you be off staring at stretched anuses somewhere?

[Methais]

Shouldn't you be off staring at stretched anuses somewhere?

No. I stopped calling your mother a couple weeks ago. It just wasn't working out.

But you should, so here you go:
http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh165/r3marcus/pumpkin-goatse.jpg

[subzero]

The issue here is not whether Whirlin or I or anyone else believes that the information should be used in that fashion. It is publically available information, period, the end. So if you disagree with the use of the information in that fashion, one of two things needs to happen: 1) public records laws/FOIA requests need to be changed so that the information isn't publically available; or 2) NY State needs to stop gathering the information so that such a list can no longer be compiled. Neither is very likely.

I don't get why everyone is turning this into a "just because you CAN do it doesn't mean you SHOULD do it." Sure, that's true of a ton of things. The fact of the matter is that it's legal to do what the newspaper did. If you disagree with the legality, then try to effect change.

Wat? I was just saying it's stupid to force gun registration information to be public. Also, uh, you might want to re-read the info in that article. The bill does not make gun ownership info public, it "Limit(s) the state records law to protect handgun owners from being identified publicly. The provision would allow a handgun permit holder a means to maintain privacy under the Freedom of Information law."


Of all the readily available public information that is out there, THIS is what people are going to get upset about? With so much as a name and a current address, I'd likely be able to query public records to determine your age, last 3 addresses, determine if you're married and/or have any kids, determine how much you paid for your last few houses, get some good ideas about how much your income has grown over the years... Then to get upset over a binary 'has gun permit' yes/no response. I just need to put it into a bit of context. I'd much rather obscure almost any of the other public records besides owning a gun.

How is knowing who owns a gun going to do you any good? Do you believe you'll find some lucky spot where there are no guns near?


I thought more guns kept people safe against things like home intruders. So entering a house with a gun in it would result in 'proper' use of the gun for self defense. To me, it sounds like something that should be encouraged. Everyone that owns a gun is a responsible, well trained person, right? And that's why we don't need anymore regulation on them.

Everyone that owns a gun doesn't stay home near their guns all day every day. They have lives; go to work, school, vacation, etc. Think about all the tough work someone would have to do to find a place to steal weapons. Look up local gun owner info, google maps to provide a rough layout of the place, Facebook/Twitter to maybe catch long-term absences... you don't even have to leave home to case a joint. Plus, guns work better when people aren't expecting to run into them. If criminals know who owns guns, they know who doesn't. Guess who's easy pickins?

[subzero]

2. A little worried about judge mandated outpatient care - patient right to decide is being infringed here (not that it wasn't already possible to mandate someone to take medication and such but NY's proposal makes it far more reaching)


Don't forget that Nazi NY City has also decided what size of a particular style of drink is too large for you, too. Little by little, they're trying to take shit away. Laugh if you want, but our laws lay pretty heavily on precedent.

[Latrinsorm]

Nazis - murdered millions of people in horrific conditions
New York - forces you to have a slightly smaller soda

I don't knoooooooooow, subby, looks like a stretch to me.

[Tgo01]

Nazis - murdered millions of people in horrific conditions
New York - forces you to have a slightly smaller soda

I don't knoooooooooow, subby, looks like a stretch to me.

http://s3.vidimg.popscreen.com/original/14/eGloeWo4MTI=_o_fat-man-drinks-regular-soda-and-eats-ice-cream-.jpg

Ask this man if he would rather give up his life or drink smaller bottles of Dr Pepper.

[subzero]

Nazis - murdered millions of people in horrific conditions
New York - forces you to have a slightly smaller soda

I don't knoooooooooow, subby, looks like a stretch to me.

Very good! Today you have learned the definition of a new word, "Hyperbole". Said in a sentence, "I can't wait until Febyouary 3rd for the Hyperbole".

[Jarvan]

I'm willing to talk at great length about this, but for now I will keep it brief. Suppose you're in a moving car, and you hit the brakes. You will still be moving in the direction you were traveling before you hit the brakes, right? Therefore at some time T after you hit the brakes, you will be at a point further on the same path, right? What, if anything, does this tell you about your brakes?When you say "does nothing to stop criminals", do you mean "prevent criminals from committing crimes" or "prevent criminals from acquiring the specified firearms"?

You do know that if criminals want a M60, they can get it right? Hell, if I had the money and will, I could prob buy an M60. Even banning assault weapons country wide would not stop CRIMINALS from getting them. I cap and bolded the key word for you.

[Parkbandit]

Okay, Dick Morris. You also repeatedly predicted Romney would win. I'm glad you're finding a silver lining in it--good for you. Enjoy the next four years (and likely more, if the GOP isn't forced to evolve).

Anything you say, Dick Breath.


Enjoy becoming totally unhinged and ranting at random people who aren't me of being me--for some reason. (Because, if they're disagreeing with you--and they're not someone else you know--naturally they must be me?)

You seriously need to stop projecting. I realize that you are banging around on the computer now and upset, but guys really aren't like that. I see you for what you are.. nothing but entertainment.


Did someone mention you're a mod? I didn't know that. I presume that you, or at least someone above you--Anticor? Kranar?--has the ability to set your paranoid delusions to rest with an IP lookup or some other tool. "Ashliana consents," you can tell them. Look it up. I don't care. I'm not anyone else, no matter how much of me your delusional thinking sees in every random person you don't know. Words don't do your stupidity justice.

I'm not a mod and no one claimed I was. Here's a clue, It: All moderators have the title of... OMG MODERATOR!

And IT's so very, very hard to hide an IP. Extremely difficult. I believe even someone with your disability can google up how to do it.

[Drakefang]

When you say "does nothing to stop criminals", do you mean "prevent criminals from committing crimes" or "prevent criminals from acquiring the specified firearms"?

What I mean is that on one hand if someone is a criminal they aren't going to register their assault weapons nor give them up. Only law abiding and thus less criminally minded people will turn them in or register. Second, criminals will go to greater lengths than most private citizens to obtain them, including burglary to gain one possibly from someone who does register theirs.

So, in short, yes to both your questions.

[Latrinsorm]

You do know that if criminals want a M60, they can get it right? Hell, if I had the money and will, I could prob buy an M60. Even banning assault weapons country wide would not stop CRIMINALS from getting them. I cap and bolded the key word for you.Here is what I know:

-no law has any physical force: anyone is literally capable of breaking any law

-people who break laws do not tend to break every law they have the opportunity to break: burglars try to avoid murder, murderers do not generally vandalize police cars en route to their target

-in jurisdictions where guns have been banned, gun crime has gone down

You may disagree with any or all of these points, even though the available empirical data backs them up. I even agree that it is very intuitive to believe that CRIMINALS would ignore gun bans, but it turns out that while some do, more do not. Our whole scientific history is of intuition being very wrong, I encourage you to consider that before you look for flaws or biases in the data (if only in the interests of saving you time).
What I mean is that on one hand if someone is a criminal they aren't going to register their assault weapons nor give them up. Only law abiding and thus less criminally minded people will turn them in or register. Second, criminals will go to greater lengths than most private citizens to obtain them, including burglary to gain one possibly from someone who does register theirs.

So, in short, yes to both your questions.As mentioned above, would it interest you to learn that in jurisdictions where guns have been banned, gun crime has gone down?

I also wonder if your distinction between criminal and law abiding holds water. If I never intend to commit murder (or other crime) with my weapon, surely I will register, right? But does this intent hold any more physical force than the laws we were discussing above? Certainly not. Isn't dividing the world into law abiding and criminals (in the sense of serious crimes, of course) just a pleasant fiction to dismiss the dark desires we all hold? Fear, hatred, revenge, any of us have deep wells of these if sufficiently provoked.

Put succinctly, isn't murder an event rather than a kind of gene?

[Drakefang]

As mentioned above, would it interest you to learn that in jurisdictions where guns have been banned, gun crime has gone down?

I also wonder if your distinction between criminal and law abiding holds water. If I never intend to commit murder (or other crime) with my weapon, surely I will register, right? But does this intent hold any more physical force than the laws we were discussing above? Certainly not. Isn't dividing the world into law abiding and criminals (in the sense of serious crimes, of course) just a pleasant fiction to dismiss the dark desires we all hold? Fear, hatred, revenge, any of us have deep wells of these if sufficiently provoked.

Put succinctly, isn't murder an event rather than a kind of gene?

What I think is that we don't know if there is a criminal gene or not...perhaps any more than we are certain there is a homosexuality gene. That's not to say there is not one, simply that researchers don't know for sure which gene or for certain if genetics is a factor, although most ascribe that it plays some role. I do not spend my free time studying either, and a wikipedia article and one or two news clips do not make me an expert. I just went and found multiple published articles that argue that crime rates have risen in places such as Chicago even though they've enacted stiffer laws regarding weapons and handguns.

I suppose if you have a doctorate in criminal justice or sociology, I'd give you much credence based on your years of study. I only have a minor in criminal justice, so I basically only know more than the average person walking down the street which isn't very much at all. Murder is always an event but many can be linked in some manner to genetics, if one is to assume that those with psychological disorders who commit murder are taken into consideration. Certainly not all humans are conditioned or genetically predisposed to murder. Some likely are. No doubt studies are being done on just such things.

My position boils down to the fact law abiding people, whom might wish to defend themselves cannot and are being killed. Do stiffer gun laws cut down on some crimes, absolutely. I doubt that homicide is one of them, however.

I liked this article. It generates debate for both sides but also counters it. There is nothing definitive in it because no study has produced any definitive results so far. I'm somewhat interested in the European study that Harvard did. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/weekinreview/29liptak.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[Latrinsorm]

I just went and found multiple published articles that argue that crime rates have risen in places such as Chicago even though they've enacted stiffer laws regarding weapons and handguns.Crime goes up and down, yes, but I said gun crime. After all, why would we expect gun control to reduce knife crime? That would be unrealistic.
My position boils down to the fact law abiding people, whom might wish to defend themselves cannot and are being killed. Do stiffer gun laws cut down on some crimes, absolutely. I doubt that homicide is one of them, however.In my research, I have found that gun control has no statistically significant correlation with homicide in particular. It is very well correlated with a reduction in suicide, however, and if we are concerned with citizen's safety (which I agree is a very important consideration for a government), surely that should factor in, no?

[Drakefang]

Crime goes up and down, yes, but I said gun crime. After all, why would we expect gun control to reduce knife crime? That would be unrealistic.In my research, I have found that gun control has no statistically significant correlation with homicide in particular. It is very well correlated with a reduction in suicide, however, and if we are concerned with citizen's safety (which I agree is a very important consideration for a government), surely that should factor in, no?

The studies I read generally stated that alternate methods of homicide maintained a constant rate after a gun ban as before. Their rate did not vary generally by amount. Homicide by firearm has not generally decreased on metro areas that have enacted gun bans. I'm not going to sit here and claim that's true for all cities. I only read articles regarding Chicago, DC and NYC.

With regard to suicide, the rate of suicide by firearm did generally decrease. There was no discussion in the articles I read that did or did not indicate other methods were used or if the overall suicide rate dropped. Just that gun suicides did as a number and percentage. Frankly, as heartless as this sounds, if someone wishes to off themselves, I hope they use the most effective tool. I don't really want to pay for them to rot in a state run mental facility after a failed attempt that left them incapacitated. Would I prefer that person be helped before it went that far, absolutely. My aunt is one of them who tried pills. Fortunately, they didn't leave her a drooling mess. It's no longer a cry for help when someone uses a gun (or a noose) for suicide.

[Warriorbird]

You do know that if criminals want a M60, they can get it right? Hell, if I had the money and will, I could prob buy an M60. Even banning assault weapons country wide would not stop CRIMINALS from getting them. I cap and bolded the key word for you.

I think you're stepping over the line into extremism. By that logic we should just legalize machine guns and rocket launchers. Use better logic.

"Assault weapons" not being the weapons that do most crimes = better logic.
"Semi automatic weapons" being a wide swath of weapons that are mostly used for legitimate purposes = better logic.

[Jarvan]

Technically speaking, Machine guns are legal. You need a class III license. Then you have to find a transferable weapon. Passing the background checks for the license is a bitch. You can be denied at the county, state, and federal level. (it's a federal license) There is also the matter of the 3,000 dollar fee. Granted, you can't buy a new M16 or M4. But you could get a full auto weapon. I even know someone who has one of these licenses. He likes to collect old firearms, and has quite a few fully working full auto weapons from WW II and Korea.

I also do believe some states have special licenses for full auto weapons. I know PA offered one in the past, I don't know if they do anymore.

[4a6c1]

Wow Jarvan that's suprisingly correct. You forgot one minor category and that is grandfathered or estate holder license, which is the category I and many other people in Texas fall under. When someone dies in your family and they will you their unlicensed hereditary weaponry you become a machine gun owner by default "acquisition". You still need to go through the process but no one can take away your weapons or no one will in this state and a few others. I collect soviet small arms on a grandfathered license that actually began with my grandfather.

[Jarvan]

Wow Jarvan that's suprisingly correct. You forgot one minor category and that is grandfathered or estate holder license, which is the category I and many other people in Texas fall under. When someone dies in your family and they will you their unlicensed hereditary weaponry you become a machine gun owner by default "acquisition". You still need to go through the process but no one can take away your weapons or no one will in this state and a few others. I collect soviet small arms on a grandfathered license that actually began with my grandfather.

Wasn't aware of that one. Actually I only really knew of C&R because one of my friends has one, and used to show me his collection from time to time. He almost never even took them to the range to shoot. Mostly he just loved military history and collected numerous items. Including weapons.

[Parkbandit]

Wow Jarvan that's suprisingly correct. You forgot one minor category and that is grandfathered or estate holder license, which is the category I and many other people in Texas fall under. When someone dies in your family and they will you their unlicensed hereditary weaponry you become a machine gun owner by default "acquisition". You still need to go through the process but no one can take away your weapons or no one will in this state and a few others. I collect soviet small arms on a grandfathered license that actually began with my grandfather.

I don't believe this will supercede one of Obama's Executive "actions" as even heirs will be required to go through a background check to aquire a firearm from their relatives.

By the way, as long as the price of the background check isn't punatively expensive, I actually agree with.

[Fallen]

I don't know if it has been discussed at length, but what does everyone think of the ATF situation? I'll admit I learned of the problems with the organization via the Daily Show, so my information is very likely slanted, but it does seem odd that a provision was slipped into the Patriot act for the Senate to have to confirm the head of the organization, then have since NEVER confirmed a head. On top of that, they basically seem to be unable to do their jobs due to restrictive legislation, and have been disallowed to grow their numbers in almost 40 years of service.

I'm fully against gun bans, but obstructionism on this level definitely needs to stop.

[Parkbandit]

I don't know if it has been discussed at length, but what does everyone think of the ATF situation? I'll admit I learned of the problems with the organization via the Daily Show, so my information is very likely slanted, but it does seem odd that a provision was slipped into the Patriot act for the Senate to have to confirm the head of the organization, then have since NEVER confirmed a head. On top of that, they basically seem to be unable to do their jobs due to restrictive legislation, and have been disallowed to grow their numbers in almost 40 years of service.

I'm fully against gun bans, but obstructionism on this level definitely needs to stop.

Who supposedly slipped this provision in? And which party is obstructing? I haven't heard anything about this.

[Fallen]

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewart-trashes-nra-they-must-be-a-michael-moore-run-covert-op-to-make-gun-owners-look-stupid/

Like I said, I haven't done research beyond listening to The Daily Show. I don't care WHO is behind it, Steward of course paints it largely as a Republican thing, but that shit is stupid.

[Latrinsorm]

The studies I read generally stated that alternate methods of homicide maintained a constant rate after a gun ban as before. Their rate did not vary generally by amount. Homicide by firearm has not generally decreased on metro areas that have enacted gun bans. I'm not going to sit here and claim that's true for all cities. I only read articles regarding Chicago, DC and NYC.Do you have a link handy for the Chicago data? I have been totally unable to find homicide data by weapon for Chicago, and as it is the most obvious and interesting example for this discussion that has been pretty frustrating.
Who supposedly slipped this provision in? And which party is obstructing? I haven't heard anything about this.According to this article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obamas-nomination-of-atf-director-signals-battle-to-strengthen-agency/2013/01/16/a272d4f2-6020-11e2-9940-6fc488f3fecd_story.html), "According to the Center for American Progress, the NRA lobbied Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.), then chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, to insert a provision in the Patriot Act reauthorization in 2006 that changed the position of ATF director from one appointed by the administration to one confirmed by the Senate." The lobbying thing sounds like rumor/innuendo to me, but the R is pretty clear. The article goes on to say that President Bush's nominee was "blocked by three Republican senators" who turn out to be fmr. Sen. Craig (R-Idaho), Sen. Crapo (R-Idaho), and Sen. Vitter (R-Louisiana), and note how it says "blocked" rather than "voted down". In a rather mysterious sentence, it also says "Obama’s first nomination was never acted upon."

[Latrinsorm]

Also found the bill in question (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr3199) for Sen. Sensenbrenner.

[4a6c1]

I don't believe this will supercede one of Obama's Executive "actions" as even heirs will be required to go through a background check to aquire a firearm from their relatives.

By the way, as long as the price of the background check isn't punatively expensive, I actually agree with.

So this is a common misunderstanding but legal machine gun owners don't care about background checks and paperwork and regulations. They've been there and done that.

I have been told that estate holder licenses who fail to apply for a class III are already on a list managed by the ATF. They hold in their possession high value or government regulated parts and sometimes museum quality weapons so imho this is understandable. I've known people who sold their hereditary weapons because they didn't want to have to think about it and I also know people who've had the white van in front of the house after they advertised to sell a machine gun they didn't really understand on the interwebs.

Personally I would not want someone who can't pass a federal background check inheriting a machine gun from their relatives.

[Jarvan]

This is funny, I hadn't looked this deep. But apparently All the cops in NY are currently violating the law. Their new gun laws that ban high capacity mags and limit 10 round mags to 7 has no carve out for law enforcement, or other normally legal users. The Gov said they are working on those details and it will be corrected... eventually.

THIS is the problem with rushing legislation thru as quickly as possible (in this case they did it so fast because they didn't want to give people the chance to go out and buy "assault weapons" before there was a freeze on selling them)

I'd love to see a guy pulled before a judge on having 9 rounds in his clip and the guy saying, hey, the officer that arrested me not only had more then 7, he had 15. Thereby violating 2 laws.