Hurry and pass gun control before we have time to read it!

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/17/cuomos-new-gun-law-does-not-exempt-new-york-cops-could-prevent-police-from-responding-to-school-shootings/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The NY SAFE Act, which was championed and signed into law by Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo, bans all magazines that hold more than seven bullets and pre-1994 high capacity magazines, and prohibits the carrying of guns on school grounds.



But because no loophole for law enforcement was included in the law, every police officer in the state is technically in violation of the statute

Sounds like a classic knee jerk reaction - excluding thoughtful, objective, fact driven debate and decision. In the minds of the Liberals, their intentions are pure, good, and the only correct solution. Sadly, there are unintended and unforseen consequences. Time will show, the desired results (safety throughout society and no more mass murder) are not achieved.

Several days ago I read an interesting article in the WSJ, by a former prosecutor (Jeffrey Shapiro) in Washington DC, and the efforts at gun control there.



He shares the following facts -



In 1976 Washington DC enacted a gun ban. No one could carry a gun in the city (no carry concealed weapons permits - none), and residents could not keep guns in their homes for self defense. They followed the UK model, and what Piers Morgan advocates - eliminate all guns.



In 1976 (year the gun ban was instituted) there were 188 homicides. Twelve years later, in 1988, there were 369 homicides. Seventeen years of total gun ban saw homicides climb to 454 in 1993.



During this seventeen year period of time, the Washington DC Police did not sit idly by. They created a special Gun Recovery Unit in 1995. They searched and looked for guns. They also launched a program to crackdown on illegal weapons - called Operation Cease Fire. Both were failures and were disbanded.



In their effort to the gun violence under control, civil liberties were infringed. They legislated so judges could hold gun related suspects without bond for up to 100 days. They enacted curfews, seized cars that had guns in them - it had little to no effect.



In 2007 a U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the DC's gun ban was unconstitutional and the gun ban was struck down.



Guess what? With law abiding citizens now in possession of guns in Washington DC, violent homicides declined. In 2008 there were 186 homicides. In 2012, 88 homicides. Not the results the liberal gun control folks would have expected, or want you to believe.



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324081704578235460300469292.html?mod=googlenews_wsj" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ddawg wrote:
Several days ago I read an interesting article in the WSJ, by a former prosecutor (Jeffrey Shapiro) in Washington DC, and the efforts at gun control there.



He shares the following facts -



In 1976 Washington DC enacted a gun ban. No one could carry a gun in the city (no carry concealed weapons permits - none), and residents could not keep guns in their homes for self defense. They followed the UK model, and what Piers Morgan advocates - eliminate all guns.



In 1976 (year the gun ban was instituted) there were 188 homicides. Twelve years later, in 1988, there were 369 homicides. Seventeen years of total gun ban saw homicides climb to 454 in 1993.



During this seventeen year period of time, the Washington DC Police did not sit idly by. They created a special Gun Recovery Unit in 1995. They searched and looked for guns. They also launched a program to crackdown on illegal weapons - called Operation Cease Fire. Both were failures and were disbanded.



In their effort to the gun violence under control, civil liberties were infringed. They legislated so judges could hold gun related suspects without bond for up to 100 days. They enacted curfews, seized cars that had guns in them - it had little to no effect.



In 2007 a U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the DC's gun ban was unconstitutional and the gun ban was struck down.



Guess what? With law abiding citizens now in possession of guns in Washington DC, in 2008 there were 186 homicides. In 2012, 88 homicides. Not what the results the liberal gun control folks would have you believe eh?

This is the most clear cut example of how gun control does not work. The population didn't drastically change, the demographics of people didn't drastically change, the only drastic change was from allowing law-abiding citizens to own guns to not allowing them to, and the results speak for themselves.

+1. Ding - ding - ding! Bingo!

Schmoe wrote:

Several days ago I read an interesting article in the WSJ, by a former prosecutor (Jeffrey Shapiro) in Washington DC, and the efforts at gun control there.



He shares the following facts -



In 1976 Washington DC enacted a gun ban. No one could carry a gun in the city (no carry concealed weapons permits - none), and residents could not keep guns in their homes for self defense. They followed the UK model, and what Piers Morgan advocates - eliminate all guns.



In 1976 (year the gun ban was instituted) there were 188 homicides. Twelve years later, in 1988, there were 369 homicides. Seventeen years of total gun ban saw homicides climb to 454 in 1993.



During this seventeen year period of time, the Washington DC Police did not sit idly by. They created a special Gun Recovery Unit in 1995. They searched and looked for guns. They also launched a program to crackdown on illegal weapons - called Operation Cease Fire. Both were failures and were disbanded.



In their effort to the gun violence under control, civil liberties were infringed. They legislated so judges could hold gun related suspects without bond for up to 100 days. They enacted curfews, seized cars that had guns in them - it had little to no effect.



In 2007 a U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the DC's gun ban was unconstitutional and the gun ban was struck down.



Guess what? With law abiding citizens now in possession of guns in Washington DC, in 2008 there were 186 homicides. In 2012, 88 homicides. Not what the results the liberal gun control folks would have you believe eh?

This is the most clear cut example of how gun control does not work. The population didn't drastically change, the demographics of people didn't drastically change, the only drastic change was from allowing law-abiding citizens to own guns to not allowing them to, and the results speak for themselves.

Except the murder rate in DC starting dropping in the 90s about same the time many DC neighborhoods where gentrifying reversing the trend of abandoning the city for the burbs leaving it for low-income neighborhoods. So, not sure this proves anything.

cornhole153 wrote:

Except the murder rate in DC starting dropping in the 90s about same the time many DC neighborhoods where gentrifying reversing the trend of abandoning the city for the burbs leaving it for low-income neighborhoods. So, not sure this proves anything.

Nice try.



In the 5 years before the 1976 gun ban, murders in Washington DC fell from 37 to 27 per 100,000. In the 5 years after the gun ban went into effect, the murder rate went back up to 35 per 100,000. In the next 17 years during the gun ban, the murder rate fluctuated. But, only one year during the long ban did the murder rate go below the murder rate of 1976. The year immediately before the ban was enforced.



Look at Chicago. In 1982 they banned handguns in that city. The murder rate there had been falling for a decade. After the gun ban went into effect, the murder rate started to rise. In a city where they have the strictest gun laws in the nation, they have their own Newtown, Conn. every 2 weeks with the number of people being murdered. Since 2001, 2,000 U.S. troops have been killed in Afghanistan. In the same time period in Chicago, 5,000 U.S. citizens have been murdered.

Ddawg wrote:

Except the murder rate in DC starting dropping in the 90s about same the time many DC neighborhoods where gentrifying reversing the trend of abandoning the city for the burbs leaving it for low-income neighborhoods. So, not sure this proves anything.

Nice try.



In the 5 years before the 1976 gun ban, murders in Washington DC fell from 37 to 27 per 100,000. In the 5 years after the gun ban went into effect, the murder rate went back up to 35 per 100,000. In the next 17 years during the gun ban, the murder rate fluctuated. But, only one year during the long ban did the murder rate go below the murder rate of 1976. The year immediately before the ban was enforced.



Look at Chicago. In 1982 they banned handguns in that city. The murder rate there had been falling for a decade. After the gun ban went into effect, the murder rate started to rise. In a city where they have the strictest gun laws in the nation, they have their own Newtown, Conn. every 2 weeks with the number of people being murdered. Since 2001, 2,000 U.S. troops have been killed in Afghanistan. In the same time period in Chicago, 5,000 U.S. citizens have been murdered.

So by your silence, can I assume you agree that the recent gentrification of DC has effected the homicide rate?



Now let's look at what actually happened in the 70s (not just the gun ban) when the rate starting increasing...



The murder rate bounced around a little before and after the 76 ban (e.g, it dropped to well below the 76 level to 23 in 1985)--but all that is somewhat meaningless without the context of what was happening in DC at the time. Despite Schmoe's assertion, the demography did change drastically and you don't have to drive far from the monuments to see shells of once beautiful neighbors in blight.



Per wikipedia:



"The District's population reached a peak of 802,178 in 1950. However, shortly thereafter, the city began losing residents and by 1980 Washington had lost one-quarter of its population. The population loss to the suburbs also created a new demographic pattern, which divided affluent neighborhoods west of Rock Creek Park from more crime-ridden and blighted areas to the east."



In the mid 90, as I said above, the middle class starting moving back and the homicide rate went down.

Actually what it means, is that people who believe like you, are in such a hurry to pass gun control laws that you aren't even taking the time to act responsibly about it.



You aren't even stopping to ask some basic questions like, to whom should this law apply?



This isn't about murder rates by guns in Chicago or DC. It's about people so eager to pass ANY gun control law that aren't stopping to even think about exempting the police from such a law.



You know, the police, the people you want us to wait for when our kids are being shot at by crazy gunmen.



If this law - as currently passed - police will have to attempt to apprehend a shooter in school while leaving their own weapons locked safely in their patrol cars.



THIS is why your side is wrong. It's not about fixing the problems, it's about dealing emotionally with things you find scary.

Determining the cause and effect of crime is a complex issue. I have spent my adult life working in, and directly with law enforcement in some pretty rough areas. I have a pretty good feel for it.



That said, let's look at some numbers - murder in Washington DC by year. You will notice, in no year before the gun ban, and in no year after the gun ban was eliminated, did the murder rate equal the murder rates attained during the gun ban years. Those are facts.

1967 - 178

1968 - 195

1969 - 287

1970 - 221

1971 - 275

1972 - 245

1973 - 268

1974 - 277

1975 - 235

1976 - 188 (No gun ban)

1977 - 192 (Gun ban instituted)

1978 - 189

1079 - 180

1980 - 200

1981 - 223

1982 - 194

1983 - 183

1984 - 175

1985 - 147

1986 - 194

1987 - 225

1988 - 369

1989 - 434

1990 - 472

1991 - 482

1992 - 443

1993 - 454

1994 - 399

1995 - 360

1996 - 397

1997 - 301

1998 - 260

1999 - 241

2000 - 239

2001 - 231

2002 - 264

2003 - 249

2004 - 198

2005 - 195

2006 - 169

2007 - 181 (Gun ban ruled unconstitutional)

2008 - 186

2009 - 145

2010 - 132

2011 - 108



How do you explain what is happening in Chicago? You can't. How do you reconcile your desire to ban guns with the U.S. Constitution? You can't.



There is a way to get serious about violence, and guns used to murder. Violating the Constitution and depriving law-abiding citizens of their rights to protect themselves is not the answer. The reality is, the left that wants to control guns is NOT serious about controlling crime.



Let's look at how serious Pres. Obama is about really controlling crime. Back in 1999, then Illinois State Senator Obama had a chance to vote on SB 759. It would require than anyone 15 years or older be prosecuted for aggravated assault, for discharging a firearm within 1,000' of a school - and be prosecuted as an adult. How did Obama vote? He voted "Present." The Chicago Tribune accused Obama of being a "gutless sheep" on crime legislation.



So, is Obama and the left really interested in controlling crime or just interested in controlling guns? Of note, the assault weapons that the left is all a-flutter about are used in about .5% of the homicides out there.

Ddawg, you're statement,"you will notice" will be lost on that guy.

nuk13 wrote:
Ddawg, you're statement,"you will notice" will be lost on that guy.

Thank you for bringing me back to reality. I needed that. I forgot that facts and logic don't work with the left. I'm going to go pour myself a big ass adult beverage - Coke Zero with a wedge of lemon - yummy.

Did anyone else see this interview with Cody Wilson? He just released the program for making magazines on a 3D printer.



http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/18/the-end-of-gun-control-or-anarchy-see-the-chilling-possibilities-created-by-3d-printed-guns/



What do you guys think about this?



I think it is great. Not because of his political views but because it is so very American and it definitely is a push back at the federal government encroachments. Does it possibly put guns in the hands of bad guys? Yes, that is a possibility but to me this is just simply a natural progression for us to deal with. This is not good or evil in and of itself anymore than fire is good or evil.



One of the reasons we are here in this life is to learn self-discipline for handling much greater power.

Gun control laws are not about guns but about control.

Note also that the law criminalizes as a felony possession of an unregistered handgun. What's more disturbing is that the punctuation of that article is imprecise, some suggest intentionally, which leaves the door open for the argument that mere possession of the handgun, regardless of registration, could be a felony down the road.



Not to mention there is no "grace period" to register a currently unregistered handgun.

Second Amendment advocates lose ground everytime they begin a discussion with the efficacy of the proposed restrictions--every discussion needs to begin with the proponent of the restrictions demonstrating first that their proposal fits within the strictures of the Second Amendment.



Every bill passed by Congress needs a statement of their authority, so every proposal needs to begin with that initial step.

SpiffCoug wrote:

Gun control laws are not about guns but about control.

+1. It's absolutely about control. There are some really good folks that are misguided, don't understand the ramifications, and are for gun control. They should understand the history of gun control in this country, and it's insidious past.



The KKK and the Democratic party used gun control in the south after the Civil War to keep blacks unarmed, vulnerable, and unable to defend themselves against the attacks of the KKK. The relationship between the Democratic party and the KKK was as close and intertwined as the democratic party and the ACLU is today. By controlling guns and denying blacks gun ownership, it enabled the KKK to intimidate with impunity and suppress the black vote.



Our Founding Fathers understand the important difference between free people being citizens, and not subjects. Subjects are not free, do not enjoy life, liberty, own property, and certainly cannot defend their lives and their property with weapons. Citizens can.



Citizens have rights. Subjects have privileges extended to them from their government. Privileges can be suspended, or withdrawn. U.S. citizens have inalienable rights from God, not from the government. Unalienable rights are not dependent on the current mood of a politician or govt. These rights come from God - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This is a very consequential concept.



This is why the Bill of Rights was written and added to the U.S. Constitution. Each one of the 10 Amendments was written to ensure our unalienable rights. To include free speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion, right to keep and bear arms, protection against unreasonable search and seizure, etc. Each right is a building block and is critically important to the whole for free citizens. If rights are removed or weakened, we lose our freedom, and become subjects.

Ddawg wrote:
Determining the cause and effect of crime is a complex issue. I have spent my adult life working in, and directly with law enforcement in some pretty rough areas. I have a pretty good feel for it.



That said, let's look at some numbers - murder in Washington DC by year. You will notice, in no year before the Capitol Centre (home of the Washington Bullets) was built, and in no year after it was demolished, did the murder rate equal the murder rates attained during the time it was operating. Those are facts.

1967 - 178

1968 - 195

1969 - 287

1970 - 221

1971 - 275

1972 - 245

1973 - 268 (Capitol Centre built)

1974 - 277

1975 - 235

1976 - 188

1977 - 192

1978 - 189

1079 - 180

1980 - 200

1981 - 223

1982 - 194

1983 - 183

1984 - 175

1985 - 147

1986 - 194

1987 - 225

1988 - 369

1989 - 434

1990 - 472

1991 - 482

1992 - 443

1993 - 454

1994 - 399

1995 - 360

1996 - 397

1997 - 301

1998 - 260

1999 - 241

2000 - 239

2001 - 231

2002 - 264 (Capitol Centre demolished)

2003 - 249

2004 - 198

2005 - 195

2006 - 169

2007 - 181

2008 - 186

2009 - 145

2010 - 132

2011 - 108



How do you explain what is happening in Chicago? You can't. How do you reconcile your desire to ban guns with the U.S. Constitution? You can't.



There is a way to get serious about violence, and guns used to murder. Violating the Constitution and depriving law-abiding citizens of their rights to protect themselves is not the answer. The reality is, the left that wants to control guns is NOT serious about controlling crime.



Let's look at how serious Pres. Obama is about really controlling crime. Back in 1999, then Illinois State Senator Obama had a chance to vote on SB 759. It would require than anyone 15 years or older be prosecuted for aggravated assault, for discharging a firearm within 1,000' of a school - and be prosecuted as an adult. How did Obama vote? He voted "Present." The Chicago Tribune accused Obama of being a "gutless sheep" on crime legislation.



So, is Obama and the left really interested in controlling crime or just interested in controlling guns? Of note, the assault weapons that the left is all a-flutter about are used in about .5% of the homicides out there.

You will notice that your facts/argument can be also be made (just as effectively) by those who opposed building the Capitol Centre.



I'm pretty sure Chicago went through similar demographic changes as DC. That is, in the 60s the middle and upper classes fled the city for the suburbs--leaving the city to lower income income, and crime prone residents. Then, starting in the 90s, people with money starting returning.



Are you really saying these changes had no effect on the homocide rate?

Did you not read my first sentence? "Determining the cause and effect of crime is a complex issue." There are many layers. If solving crime is a simple, single issue equation - crime would have been eliminated long ago. It has not been.



Your ridiculous argument about the Capitol Centre is just that - ridiculous. But, it's classic you. You like to be argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.



That said - you have failed to answer - how do you square your desire to take away guns from law abiding citizens with the 2nd Amendment? How can you justify denying a law abiding citizen the right to protect his family, himself, and his property?

Ddawg wrote:
Did you not read my first sentence? "Determining the cause and effect of crime is a complex issue." There are many layers. If solving crime is a simple, single issue equation - crime would have been eliminated long ago. It has not been.



That said - you have failed to answer - how do you square your desire to take away guns from law abiding citizens with the 2nd Amendment? How can you justify denying a law abiding citizen the right to protect his family, himself, and his property?

I thought you were arguing that gun control does not work, and in fact, it leads to increased crime. If that's not to case I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.



I'm no constitutional scholar, but i believe it can be amended. Also, given that guns at that time were long rifles that shot a couple rounds a minute and were relatively inaccurate, I'm not sure putting the semiautomatic weapons and concealable handguns in the hands of the citizens were the clear intent of the founders.



Finally, I believe many studies show that households with guns are less safe--so I don't get too fussed about denying families guns. Also guns aren't allowed in church, even for those with permits, so to me that is a good model of safety for my home.