Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

Details

Closed to new replies
January 16, 2013
Link

Statistics

Replies: 282

NYS with the US following

:icontimberclipse:
TimberClipse Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013  Professional Filmographer
As a New York state resident, I was very proud to see that we took the lead with gun control legislation, and that then President Obama followed suit today. 

Some of the main legislative proposals backed by Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are:
    • requiring criminal background checks on all gun sales, including private sales    
    • banning "military-style" assault weapons    
    • limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds      
    • strengthening penalties for gun trafficking 

    New York State is also pushing for additional limits that would require a maximum of 7 round magazines. 

    How do you feel about these changes? Are you glad that after so long the United States is stepping up to the plate or do you feel this is restrictive and unfair? Discuss! But be nice. 
    Reply

    You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

    Devious Comments

    :iconrobstrand:
    RobStrand Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2013
    Sit back, relax, and what your crime rate soar once again.
    Reply
    :iconghostinthepines:
    GhostInThePines Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
    Last time I checked, criminals don't give a damn about any laws let alone gun laws... they'll just get their illegal weapons & accesories on the black market like they always have. Nothing changes with this. It's stupid politics doing things for show and not actually doing anything to solve the problem of gun violence.
    Reply
    :iconimprovidentscion:
    ImprovidentScion Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
    [link]

    Looks like Cuomo had such a massive gun-ban boner to yank that he forgot to exempt law enforcement. Yet again, there is one standard for the rulers (as well as those whose paycheck rides on protecting those rulers), and another standard for the ruled. No matter how many police officers and soldiers assault and murder innocent people every year, the only gun control the progressive airheads want to implement will affect people who don't commit assault and/or murder.

    It's easier to take scary black rifles from people who can accept the loss of that rifle so they can continue putting food on their tables than it is to prevent alienated losers pumped full of psychotropics from getting to a point where they are able to harm others. That way the POTUS can go on TV, pat himself on the back, and along with millions of paranoid soccer moms, sheltered coastal city-dwellers, and other varying grades of hoplophobes say "well, we did something about it" and go home.

    My questions to anti-gun advocates is simply this: When the next mass murder involving a firearm occurs, where would you want to stop in terms of legislation/executive orders?
    Reply
    :iconkiwi-punch:
    Kiwi-Punch Featured By Owner Jan 20, 2013  Student Digital Artist
    Good for New York. The fact of the matter is, that this is only a SMALL STEP in the right direction. Perhaps by limiting guns, we should also look at re-opening mental institutions as well. It's not just guns that are the issue; people sometimes snap for very psychological reasons and need help to control themselves.

    Banning high-powered weaponry and keeping crazies from getting guns is a step in the right direction; but now, it's time to treat those who need to be treated, and to fix this overall culture of violence. Reducing access to high-powered guns is step one out of three.
    Reply
    :iconsonrouge:
    sonrouge Featured By Owner Jan 20, 2013
    Define "High-powered weaponry" and "crazies".
    Reply
    :iconbonnieknox:
    BonnieKnox Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
    Do not bother with certain ones. Crazies are those who do not think like them. But a label settled up by an individual with no guts is completely invalid.They seem to hate guns and religion, then pray for somebody to come up with a gun to their rescue if they get robbed.

    It is ok to not like guns, nobody is forcing them to buy one. They just have to maintain their noses out of other people's business.

    Folks like this get eaten in the south for breakfast before they could notice

    How curious the freedom works in some people's minds. Interesting
    Reply
    :iconsonrouge:
    sonrouge Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2013
    Oh, I know that. But it's fun sometimes to make them have to define their terms and watch them struggle to do so.
    Reply
    :iconvisionoftheworld:
    VISIONOFTHEWORLD Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2013
    Yes to all of the above, but without a very strong enforecement clause it would go nowhere. And I'm not worried about congress. They can pass it in the Senate and let the congress vote it down, only for it to be taken up again in January 2015 after the supporters of child murder get thrown out next election.
    Reply
    :iconkitsumekat:
    kitsumekat Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2013
    In all honest opinion, I wish they would legalize murder. Makes it easier for the gun nuts on here to shoot each other.
    Reply
    :iconvisionoftheworld:
    VISIONOFTHEWORLD Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2013
    Murder basically has been legalized- it's just been renamed "stand your ground". As much as I understand the excasperation, I would just say that my concern is that the gun nuts aren't killing eachother enough- they're murdering children and turning their weapons against you and me, against Christmas shoppers, movie goers, university students, teachers, their own parents and only after all this slaughter they off themselves to deny justice being done to them on earth.
    Reply
    :icondorsaispirit:
    Dorsaispirit Featured By Owner Jan 20, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
    Just a hint Vision, pretty much the only people that actually choose to actually go against an armed opponent are the police and military. Otherwise, people tend to choose easy targets. That whole self preservation instinct influences their thinking even if they want to die.

    I would much rather find the overall root causes of our country's violence than just blame a gun. Also, I'm sorry, I find it very hard to trust only this government with the only firearms when they refuse to be honest about using drones, wiretaps, or even arming the FDA agents performing health inspections on diary farms. Much less be honest about what they are using drones for in a combat zone. If you trust any government that much, then you have more faith in that than most people place in a god.
    Reply
    :iconkitsumekat:
    kitsumekat Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013
    Damn.
    Reply
    :iconbonnieknox:
    BonnieKnox Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
    I think is ridiculous.

    I am glad I live in Redneckland. My friends have arsenals at their homes. The children shoot, the granmas shoot too and we do not have all this messed up school shootings around here.

    If somebody want to go on a spree killing he does not need an armory. You can find other ways, like poisoning food in universities and schools or making homemade bombs. The crazies always find their way to do twisted stuff. It is not as bloody and fast but can be lethal too

    The problem is not the guns themselves, is the society itself. As a foreigner I can see it clearly, because I am not raised here, so I can compare with my society despite being highly Americanized myself: As individuals here are forced to hide their anger and play nice, because reputation (hypocrisy too) seems to be everything or to avoid lawsuits, the anger builds up in the individual and when it is too much to bear, some just snap.
    Reply
    :iconmclandis:
    Mclandis Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
    we do not have all this messed up school shootings around here.

    Actually, you do. The south also has a higher homocide rate per 100,000 people than the rest of the country.

    You can find other ways, like poisoning food in universities and schools or making homemade bombs.

    1) Mass poisoning via food is highly unlikely to succeed. Kitchens tend to be packed with employees, so the only way a psychopath could pull that off is if the kitchen staff were all blind or morons. A more likely method is using gas, but seeing as biological and chemical weapons are tightly controlled, that's also unlikely to get anywhere.

    2) Bomb making materials are closely monitored and making effective homemade explosives takes skill, lot of time, and not getting noticed. Once again, not very likely to happen.
    Reply
    :iconbonnieknox:
    BonnieKnox Featured By Owner Jan 26, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
    More homicidal rate does not mean more mass shootings.
    The fact that some media says so does not mean it is true. It can be true or not. I would not trust the statistics or the media, they are notorious for lying. Not conservatives or liberals, all of them.

    The home invasions in my area are low because everybody has an arsenal at home, you just do not bring your arsenal out of your house. Somebody breaks into a house?, well, the owner has the right to blow his head off, after all, nobody is going to break into your home at 3 am to cover you with a blanket and say goodnight. But well, for some media the southerners are just folks who go around shooting each other and such...

    I am not counting killings concerning domestic violence and such, I am counting the spree killings

    1. It is unlikely to happen, but unlikely does not mean impossible, as I said, crazies find their way and sometimes they recruit others to help.

    2. Timoty McVeigh, that madman, made a mess himself with the bombings

    The solution is simple. You do not like guns?. This is like marriage, do not get one, but others will get them
    Reply
    :iconjackmolotov3:
    JackMolotov3 Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
    I feel glad I don't live in New York State.

    Its terrible we have people who think we can solve social problems, imagined or otherwise with unrelated restrictions.

    I also feel terrible, that people who've held this life long phobia for guns, wait until tragedy strikes to stir emotional sentiment standing on the still warm bodies of victims as podiums, and then try and shout down and harrass the opposition.
    Reply
    :icontrorbes:
    Trorbes Featured By Owner Jan 20, 2013
    What makes you think the only reason one would restrict the proliferation of firearms is because of some phobia of guns? It's perfectly reasonable to decide that we, as a society, do not typically require assault weapons or armor-piercing bullets for personal use.

    This is not the frontier days when the average citizen had to face wild animals, Native American attacks, and slave uprisings, and the typical home weapon was a breach-loaded rifle or pistol. This is not the time when law enforcement was in the hands of the people, and a standing army didn't exist. This is not the time when states still had organized militias. The gun culture today is radically different from the one the Second Amendment was written in, and to act like the desire to own a personal cache of military-style weaponry in some delusional need to be a one-person army was the will of the founders is revisionist absurdity. We need gun laws to reflect this society, not one 200 years ago.
    Reply
    :iconjackmolotov3:
    JackMolotov3 Featured By Owner Jan 20, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
    "What makes you think the only reason one would restrict the proliferation of firearms is because of some phobia of guns?"
    because so far thats all I've seen.
    Reply
    :icontrorbes:
    Trorbes Featured By Owner Jan 20, 2013
    That's all you've looked for, you mean.
    Reply
    :iconwolfos96:
    wolfos96 Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
    That's not the US stepping up to the plate. The US stepping up to the plate would be protecting our 2nd ammendment, not weakening it.
    Reply
    :iconvisionoftheworld:
    VISIONOFTHEWORLD Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2013
    Read the second amendment- it doesn't mention guns. Government can regulate guns all it wants as long as it upholds a basic right to self protection by some other means. Fortunately our government is interested in protecting the lives of innocents, children- which obviously matters shit to you. Sorry fool the lives of innocent children being protected are more important than what you think the second amendment means.
    Reply
    :iconwolfos96:
    wolfos96 Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
    I totally agree. Disarming a child's parents so that an armed criminal can come in and shoot him is a great idea. (/sarcasm)

    When did I ever say anything about wanting harm to come to children?
    Reply
    :iconsonrouge:
    sonrouge Featured By Owner Jan 20, 2013
    Vision's a nut who foams at the mouth when anyone speaks out in favor of something he doesn't like, so don't put too much stock into his words.
    Reply
    :iconjeysie:
    Jeysie Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
    The 2nd Amendment says guns are only necessary for a well-regulated militia. So as long as we're allowed to own guns for the purpose of creating a well-regulated militia, we're good.
    Reply
    :iconroses-to-ashes:
    Roses-to-Ashes Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
    so um how are we supposed to be a good militia with only hunting rifles and 9mm's? not very good when the rest have Higher power..
    Reply
    :iconjeysie:
    Jeysie Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
    Last I checked, our military has a lot more than that.

    Want the same? Join up.
    Reply
    :iconjackmolotov3:
    JackMolotov3 Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
    completely dismissing how asymmetric warfare works.
    Reply
    :iconjeysie:
    Jeysie Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
    Since it's irrelevant, yes.
    Reply
    :iconsonrouge:
    sonrouge Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2013
    I think your state is going to provide a very nice example of how pointless fear-mongering gun bans are and hopefully lead to more and more people rejecting such political BS.

    And I hope you will one day see the immorality of punishing people who have committed no crime before the thinking behind it is applied to you. After all, if guilt or innocence no longer matter, then how much does the actual act matter?
    Reply
    :iconmaddmatt:
    maddmatt Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2013
    How would this have stopped Adam Lanza?

    I know how an armed guard at a choke point he could have been forced to enter would have stopped it.

    I don't see how making criminals of legal gun owners would have kept Adam Lanza from taking whatever weapons and however many clips he could get and doing exactly what he did.

    "well...7 round restrictions would not give you as much ammo"
    Except carrying 7 clips and a gun-free zone of defenseless victims allows you all the time to reload that you need.

    It is such a knee-jerk tyrannical abuse to bypass our checks and balances just so people like you can feel better that finally "SOMETHING" was done. Even if that something doesn't stop this kind of thing and only hurts law-abiding citizens who can protect themselves and others when government fails or is unable to do so.

    from 2003-2011 Chicago had 3,371 people killed from guns. Less than 1% of those with weapons that would be covered under the NY ban. In fact, more were murdered with baseball bats. Lets ban bats!!!!!

    It is not a sane position to look at these orders and think we are suddenly safe or this does anything other than hurt legal and responsible gun owners that protect themselves, their families, and others.
    Reply
    :iconjackmolotov3:
    JackMolotov3 Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
    "I know how an armed guard at a choke point he could have been forced to enter would have stopped it."

    an armed guard would have not stopped him. He would have been the first victim.

    "It is such a knee-jerk tyrannical abuse to bypass our checks and balances just so people like you can feel better that finally "SOMETHING" was done. Even if that something doesn't stop this kind of thing and only hurts law-abiding citizens who can protect themselves and others when government fails or is unable to do so."
    Its between this and banning video games.

    I am ashamed we have to pick and choose our freedoms every time the mainstream media starts screaming about something needed to be done.

    We all need to put our foot down, and stop making scape goats, and stop trying to blame each others liberties for shoots.

    fact is that you'll never stop all shootings, or all deaths, and we just need to live with that. Living in a paranoid state with an every increasing list of things the government can take or watch you for doesn't make us safer. It just takes our rights.
    Reply
    :iconmaddmatt:
    maddmatt Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013
    A trained armed guard would have stopped Adam. A choked point that was secure would have stopped Adam. Teachers exercising a constitutional right of personal protection would have stopped Adam.

    Obama's choice of schools would have stopped Adam.

    But I completely agree. In a free society you won't prevent all crime and tragedy.
    Reply
    :iconjackmolotov3:
    JackMolotov3 Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
    "A trained armed guard would have stopped Adam."

    Trained like what? Ex-miltiary? Ex-LE? Fetch a premium basic armed guards won't give.

    "A choked point that was secure would have stopped Adam"
    I have a good idea, for the handful of school shootings a year in a nation of 300 million, lets turn every school into a fortress.

    I agree, if you had a military style entry point, complete with hardened gun point/bunkers, armed over watch, and phased entry, designed to delay an attacker long enough for overwatch/QRF to responed it would have easily stopped a lone, untrained gunman, like Adam. From doing this in the army, I've been the guard plenty, worked all stations of said post, and understand the operating concepts to the letter.

    Prudent outside an army base? sure.

    Outside every school, thats a police state.
    Reply
    :iconmaddmatt:
    maddmatt Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2013
    Trained like a police resource officer that thousands of schools around the nation already use effectively.
    Reply
    :iconjackmolotov3:
    JackMolotov3 Featured By Owner Jan 22, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
    trained "like a police officer" means either current or ex-law enforcement, or alternatively, current or ex-military. These people command a premium in services beyond basic armed guards.

    for every school, in the entire nation. Thats going to get expensive. Your going to need at least one for every entrance/exit too.
    Reply
    :iconmaddmatt:
    maddmatt Featured By Owner Jan 22, 2013
    Nope. Police resource officers are currently used in thousands of schools effectively.
    Reply
    :iconjackmolotov3:
    JackMolotov3 Featured By Owner Jan 22, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
    in more of a detective role. In this role, you only need one. I wouldn't be hard to task one from local PD

    you want them performing entry security/sentry duties. you'd need more of them.
    Reply
    (1 Reply)
    :iconkalshion:
    Kalshion Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
    Very well said, what you've been saying on this subject across this board I find no fault with (Your also taking the words out of my mouth =P)
    Reply
    :iconroses-to-ashes:
    Roses-to-Ashes Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
    :clap: I applaud you :)
    Reply
    :iconsapphirezero:
    SapphireZero Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2013  Student Writer
    I'm not impressed by New Yorks Numbers. It's one of the highest in Crime numbers, and from 2010 to 2011 there has been a around a 1% increase in crime. New York's assault rate increased by 3.1% from '10 to '11 as well. I would advise not to use New York when the more serious crimes are increasing overall in the state.

    Over the current forms of Gun Control, I'm luke warm over.

    Current gun regulations need an overhaul, I don't have an issue with a waiting period or evaluation for buying a gun. It's needed and vital to keep guns off from the insane and criminals. I do worry that it will overburden the government for the checks or the rules may be too strict to be practical.

    The restrictions on certain rifles because of their appearance doesn't make any sense, nor do I see any kind of logic to back up of aesthetics gun to make it banable. What qualifies for military appearance? Why would this bill be effective in preventing more deaths? How many deaths and is that number good enough for the ban?

    Lastly the magazine issue is not only laughable, but also a waste of time. It's very much possible to create your own magazines, in fact some folks have begun giving data over a 3D printer design.
    Reply
    :iconwhy-did-kenji-die:
    Why-did-Kenji-die Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013
    Poor NY
    Reply
    :iconshadow-hacker:
    Shadow-Hacker Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
    If all the good guys have only 9mm or other small handguns of the likes and they go in trying to confiscate the bigger guns from the badder guys, whose going to die first? the one getting hit with standard police rounds or the one dishing out something the size of a new crayon?
    Reply
    :iconroses-to-ashes:
    Roses-to-Ashes Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
    [link] "NYPD To Be In Violation Of Cuomo’s New Anti-Gun Law After They Fail To Exempt Police Officers From Ban On Ammo Clips Over 7-Rounds…" I LOL'd
    Reply
    :iconunvalanced:
    Unvalanced Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
    Hey... I have no issue with that. But it is hilarious.
    Reply
    :iconshadow-hacker:
    Shadow-Hacker Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
    And then something like that happens. Now the NYPD cops can't carry more then 7 bullets per clip (unless the "genius" who wrote up the law changes it) This only shows what a state of *pardon my french* Dick heads the United States Government has turned into.
    Reply
    :iconroses-to-ashes:
    Roses-to-Ashes Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
    I couldn't agree more
    Reply
    :iconshadow-hacker:
    Shadow-Hacker Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
    Let's overthrow the global power and exile every government official and anyone with any political power
    Reply
    :iconneurotype:
    neurotype Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
    It's a start, but I think there are deeper problems leading to mass shootings in America--this just addresses an overall violence issue here.

    Although the thing all the pro-gunners are missing is that guns are like the easiest, fastest way to off someone. Reducing their accessibility needs to happen.
    Reply
    :iconphoenixleo:
    phoenixleo Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013
    Wool doesn't do anything by itself, it sure does help having human hands and tools to use it with to make woolen clothes.
    Rat poison don't kill kids, but it sure does help to keep it on the floor...

    :lol:
    Reply
    :iconavskyggene:
    AvSkyggene Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013
    1) Yes. Why wasn't this already implemented to begin with?

    2) No. People can't even determine what a "military-style" assault weapon even is. Guns that look more threatening than other guns? Guns with accessory rails? A useless provision until they determine what their own definition is.

    3) No. Right, because it's so difficult for people to reload guns. Gah, the stupid. It hurts. Shooters can get around this easily by carrying more guns too. You need to work to prevent the shooting not just minimize causalities once it starts.

    4) Yes. Who doesn't think that's a good idea?

    And of course, not a single word about the obviously unstable people doing the shooting. So another political stunt so everyone can pat themselves on the back and pretend they did a good job while a very real problem still goes unspoken.
    Reply
    Add a Comment: