Thanks, since your a new member....I will take note.

Here is a quote from Assemblyman Steve Katz, “I leave my wife and three young daughters home alone for days at a time to represent my constituents here,” Katz said on the floor of the Assembly. “After what happened to the young mother in Loganville, Georgia who defended her two young children against an intruder, this bill will turn me into a criminal because you can bet that before I leave to do the people’s work, there will be more than seven bullets in the magazine of my wife’s firearm.”

Good for him. Our families are more important then some stupid laws made by people that have no clue. I am sure their families are safely protected.

Be safe!

Do you have kids in college? Did you do anything to help keep your kids safe while they are away at school curious.

Let me turn the question the other way around: Do you think that the more guns there are in a country, the safer its inhabitants are?

This country has a mental health problem disguised as a gun problem and a tyranny problem disguised as a security problem.

-JOE ROGAN

Your unsafe if the guy with the gun gets the drop on you or if you have a gun out and hesitate to use it.

Most people without guns or with guns hesitate.

One of the things I taught all my kids is if you think your endanger don't hesitate.

There is a space about 2 feet from you that if you feel endangered and are unarmed don't let anyone enter. At that point in time you have to make up your mind to act and don't stop until they are on the floor then

Found this which may answer just that:

Violent crime rates reported by the FBI Uniform Crime Report and the BJS NCVS have been dropping since the expiration of the old AWB. The same UCR shows modern sporting rifles and their magazines that Sen. Feinstein has wanted to ban for the past 20+ years constitute a tiny fraction of all murders. Even the National Research Council report done for the Clinton administration stated there were too few of them used in crimes to be statistically relevant. Murder rates reported by the FBI and the homicide rates reported by the NCVS have fallen to nearly half of the high for this generation and have fallen since the expiration of the '94 AWB, where the NRC stated they weren't relevant, while these firearms have become more popular with the public they can't contribute to a rising violent crime rate that is actually falling.

These rifles have been used in hunting and personal defense since the '60s. They have been used for competitions for 20+ years. Today there are more participants in official competition with them than competitive shotgun competitions. Articles on their suitability for hunting are found in every hunting publication. Ads for their hunting use date back to the late '60s. Reviews of their performance are found on hunting websites. Television programs focused on hunting have featured them specifically with respect to deer hunting and controlling destructive feral hog populations. The US Park Service and National Forrest Service contract for feral hog control services using these firearms. "Traditional" hunting rifle manufacturers like Remington have invested in tooling and added these types of rifles and offer them specifically for hunting. Any search for "AR deer hunting" or "AR hog hunting" will provide sufficient evidence these firearms are used for hunting. These days they easily meet the definition of sporting firearms.

Recently in Rochester NY a resident used an AR to protect himself and roommate against armed intruders. This occurs every year. Departments of the U.S. government issue RFPs for "personal defensive weapons" requesting bids for these rifles. These modern rifles are used effectively for personal defense by citizens and the federal government departments and agencies define them as personal defense weapons. Prohibitionists say these firearms have no use for personal defense, but the government itself says they are suitable for personal defense.

Government and university studies show that firearms are used from half a million to 2.5 million times a year to stop violent crime. http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/kleckandgertz1.htm That's a remarkable contrast to the roughly 8,000 murders committed with every type of firearm reported in the FBI UCR. This is also in contract to the sporting uses in hunting and competition noted earlier and the personal defensive definition of government RFPs. Prohibitionists that claim they're "just for killing" ignore the facts that they're used to save lives as well as in sport and recreation.

Senator Feinstein has been promoting the same agenda for 20+ years while violent crime rates drop, personal defense and sporting use of these firearms increases. Her attitudes, information and legislation are at odds with the facts, government data, and the increasing popularity of these firearms for sport, hunting, and personal defense. It is important to study the data, facts and opinions before espousing that of others.
__________________

This was on tv today. Bloomberg is surrounded by 5 body guards with guns when some guy goes right to Bloomberg and asks him if he would give up his guards with their guns to protect him. Then the body guards got the guy away from Bloomberg.

Well my friends if that guy had a weapon knife or gun Bloomberg would have been dead now. His so called body guards let him get real close to Bloomberg and talk to him before they acted. It would have been to late to save him.

Bloomberg should get ride of those bozos they were useless in this situation.

Which just goes to show you that having a gun, or even five, doesn't necessarily stop a gunman. More guns aren't the answer.

Actually better body guards are the answer. But if a guy is willing to give himself up to get someone. He could get someone.

What did you want them to do pistol whip him for being mouthy?

Did he make a threating move, look like he was pulling something out to use as a weapon?

Last I heard you can't be a good public servant without being out in the public. Hell, The president even goes out into a group of people. Good body guards know when to strike.

This isn't Nazi Germany, or at least not yet.

Well what do you hire a body guard for if not to protect your person so you don't have to do it yourself.

He approached our mayor with one of those big sodas that bloomers wants to out law.

If I was his body guard that tells me the guy may have been a little crazy.

You don't just let anybody approach the guy your guarding you get in the way and question him first. You might even frisk him while your talking to him.

Then you tell him go away and don't come back. Then if you see them again later anywhere you man is standing. Then you act. How's that sound?

Posted by a navy seal on a firearm web site


Gun Control isn't about GUNS.....

......... it is about CONTROL.




And this gem was posted by a son of a German Jew:

I saw a movie once about a time and place in which only the military had guns. It's called "Schindler's List".

I guess I missed something here. This guy wasn't a gunman?
and if he was, more then likely he would be taken down but not shot by the guards since he was in really close range.

There would be a good chance that we would have been taken down hopefully before he could have gotten a good shot off if it was shown to have a weapon or moved to use it.

Having a gun with you can not stop someone from pulling his own weapon or doing something foolish. It can stop a person or persons if need if the threat was as bad as deemed enough to warrant taking a persons life and only then.

Nothing is 100% fool proof so "necessarily" is a moot point as far as events go. All gun owner have to justify it's use, this isn't the wild west, even if people think it is. lol

More guns may not be the answer, but no guns or less guns is NOT the soultion, THAT Fact- people are sure of,
(who understand and know firearms.)

Please see my post above for more details.
It has many good points about this kind of thing.
Be Good and be safe.

Which is the case in almost every movie about the war.
Seriously, the argument about Nazi Germany is ahistorical: When the Nazis came to power (tomorrow it's 80 years ago), there was basically almost no resistance, not even civil resistance, not even a general strike, which was low risk and the way the Kapp coup was put to its knees in 1920. No civil courage either: They started with the communists, then the Jews. No-one interfered, even when the risks were still little. Antisemitism was omnipresent.

Oh, and I saw a movie once were almost every one had a gun...

D, I agree. The German people acceded to the Third Reich's reign of terror. Also, the limitations on civilian firearms during the 12 year reign of the Third Reich is one of history's most enduring myths.

Danito are you really a ghost?

Interesting thought. The German People vs the German JEWISH people.

What part was "the limitations on civilian firearms during the 12 year reign of the Third Reich is one of history's most enduring myths."


The part where they (the Jewish people) were rounded up, having most of their belongings taken from them, forced to live in slum ghettos, then taken to concentration camps or forced labor camps, or the ones taken to the kill camps?

Which one is a enduring myth-
who had no limitations on civilian firearms?

You mean the Jews had weapons and didn't fight back during all this? Maybe they shouldn't have trusted their own government so much?

Fathersson, I enjoy reading your posts in this thread.

No, there was just hardly any chance for an organised revolt. In the early years, some thought, it would remain an episode. In the 40s it was total war, total terror.
In 1933, the communists still had weapons, but they were hit immediately. Don't forget, the police was also on the side of the Nazis.

How did things get so far? What started as a thread about gun control has become wild interpretations of what the Nazis did or did not do about guns. What does this have to do with the current situation.

Bottom line here is this. There is a right to bear arms in the US that cannot be taken away unless the Second Amendment is abolished, which is not going to happpen.

It is also a fact that despite this right to bear arms, there is no individual right to have drones, atomic bombs nuclear missles, hence there already is de facto arms control. The only question therefore is how far do we go as a matter of policy.

Even if background checks, limited magazines, and the assault rifle ban all goes into effect it will not end gun violence. But as the president says, if it saves one life, its worth it.

No one is going to come and take people's guns away. Thats NRA nonsense.

No it won't. If someone wants to do you harm they will find some other means to do it.

Mig, read what I said. I said it will NOT end all gun violence. There's just a chance it will be reduced, and I repeat if it saves one life its worth it.

You ARE right DT. IF even one other school slaughter (or shooting anywhere) is avoided, it would be worth it. Thing is, the gun clingers and their head honcho, NRA God, LaPierre or as I heard one person call him, Pepe la Pew, want to insist the violence won't end, which NOBODY is saying. It's become a talking point. That's their story and they're sticking to it. Don't beat a dead horse.

Btw, technically Lanza's mom, who was supposedly a responsible gun owner, had she lived, should have been held accountable for her son. She KNEW his mental state and still kept her guns (whether they were locked or unlocked).

TIS

I read your post twice just to make sure I read it correct.

I think all people by now understand that the 2nd amendment talks about the "right to bear arms," even thou there are many that would like to twist this to fit their own wants or needs. And without getting silly with the atomic bombs nuclear missiles kind of talk which never makes anyone's point seem real. Lets talk facts please. that are at least in the real realm of things.
We should really talk about what has been proposed or has already been enacted upon like in New York State. Which I may add was pushed thru like bandits in the night without any kind of public impute or discussion of any kind. Never mind it being put up to any type of vote or a way to express your concerns.

What good is the right to bear arms if the restrictions that are put on your arms are so tight that people feel that they have been wronged and that right has just about been taken away from them? I think people like to use the term infringed on.

I think the facts have shown (and those facts which came from places like the FBI and other Government agency's) that much of these new weapons bans are or will not effect mass shootings. Loose terms like Assault Rifles have started bans on semi auto rifles and hand guns. And if people don't understand the difference then they should learn before yelling and screaming about banning them!

People should read the real facts written by EXPERTS and not cloud the waters by repeating fears of people who know little if nothing on the subject.
Your own post :
Even if background checks, limited magazines, and the assault rifle ban all goes into effect it will not end gun violence. But as the president says, if it saves one life, its worth it.

has an opinion that most people can understand and agree upon, expect when you start adding the part about "If IT SAVES ONE LIVE' that is a term that has gotten over used and is not a good reason to start new bans or enact new laws. How many lives will be lost if these new rules on into effect, does anyone stop to think about THAT?

Your last statement: No one is going to come and take people's guns away. That's NRA nonsense. is one that may people are worried about. Here in New York, you may have seen and heard about what has leaked out of the king governor planing and it was just that. The taking of people weapons. Even if Finsteins call to ban 157 types of guns is unlikely to happen, then why waste the time to bring it out there?

Making people RE register ( and that has passed here in NY) their weapons makes this one step closer and easier to do. If not, there was real talk about special taxes on guns or fees being put on your registration of guns which would have to be done every so many of years. Another money grab, at the least. (All hand guns are already register here in NY just so people know.)

Well, I did my best to state the facts in a mature manor. Without nit picking or being rude.

Damn, like Paw use to say, the slope gets real slippery.

You know it always seems to slide down hill when it slides.

Thanks for reading,
Be safe

We'll never know whether universal background checks and universal reductions in magazines and reduction of assault weapons across the board will reduce violence or not. Agreet that New York has very tight gun laws, and I would he intellectually dishonest if I said I approved of the way the recent laws in New York were railroaded through. The fact is no matter how much I favor a law (or oppose it) these things deserve to be heard out, debated, etc., and not rammed through any legislature.

As long as you can buy guns at shows without a background check, or slip a gun from Virginia into New York, or someplace else where the laws are restrictive, then for sure there willl be no reduction in violence. That is why we need a FEDERAL law that applies nationwide. If it doesn't reduce violence I will be the first to admit it, but I don't think it will be the case.

As for the slippery slope argument, thats just a canard the NRA uses. Sliipery slope to what? Confiscation? Thats not gonna happen.

Yes, TIS she made a mistake that cost her and many others their lives! I wish there were ways for us to keep people from making mistakes, but that is just not going to happen. Are we to punish others for her mistakes?

I just said (above) about the "if it saves one life" line.....if it is so true why do we allows so many other things to kill people. Or is it just a line when there are no real facts that sounds good?

Drugs, drinking and driving, and the list goes on and on..why because people aren't willing to give up booze, drugs and their cars like they are so willing to give up others right to have firearms. Sounds cold but are you willing to give any of these up to save one life?
Did anyone read the FBI report of how people are killed? Hammers kill more then any Rifles that they are banning in NY state.
Lets be fair about the facts.

yes a saved life is wonderful but what I want to know what will they want to ban next?

AS I have said in other posts, here in NY we had the rounds go down to 10 rounds years ago and that is the term pushed around on this new Federal statements being talked about.
But the king Govenor couldn't be happy with that, since we were already at that level he just enacted it to come down from 10 to 7. WHY?

most guns don't even have a 7 round mag to be used. In other states it would be 17 rounds in these same guns. This would be a standard mag when the gun was made and what it would have come with the gun if it wasn't sold here in NY or I think CA.
Fear is if he could screw us here in NY with the recent laws in which were railroaded through what keeps them from doing it again and again to 5 then 3 then just a single shot is ok? PLease don't think this is silly, we just got seven with talks about removing our guns when they were in private sessions. Of course people want and need to speak out. BEFORE it happens