Afternoon read: guns, guns, guns, guns, guns
Detail, front page of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association’s claim.
I was really hoping not to post about this today, but am behooved.
The horrible school shooting in Newtown, Conn., last December, provoked a nationwide discussion about guns and gun control that many had thought unlikely given the high levels of polarization that surround the issue. In New York state, that discussion quickly resulted in the passage of a new gun law, the NY SAFE Act, that is one of the nation’s toughest.
But of course we know all this — guns, gun control and the constitutional and other issues they call to mind have been all over the news for weeks now. Brian Mann filed an excellent story this very morning about how gun owners and dealers in our area are dealing with the new law (or refusing to engage with it). And that’s far from the only coverage NCPR has done on the issue. Tomorrow, David Sommerstein will file a story on a Potsdam man who bought an AK-47 from a local classified ad to make a statement about assault rifles.
The ongoing guns/gun control story isn’t one I relish — the gun control dialog is frequently one of America’s least functional (it’s right up there with abortion and the national debt), and every new story reminds me of the Newtown shooting and others. But on we must go, because it’s incredibly important.
This in mind, I draw your attention to two stories in the news. First, Your News Now reports that the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association has filed the first legal challenge against the new law, claiming (PDF) it violates the US Constitution’s commerce clause, among other things (this happened yesterday). It also describes the legislation as “impermissibly vague and overboard.” This isn’t a lawsuit, yet, but it may well become one. We’ll see what happens with that.
Also, the Albany Times-Union reports that Gov. Cuomo’s approval rating has dropped 15 points since the new law. It’s still quite high, though — it was at 74 percent, now it’s at 59 percent. That’s according to a new poll from Quinnipiac University.
“I wouldn’t get too sensitive about it, especially since it wasn’t directed at you.”
I realize your snarky comment wasn’t directed at me but it was snarky. I am sure RC is perfectly capable and does read full sentences.
The point is that the supreme court has already ruled on these issues. The court has said that it is for self defense (heller). If it wasn’t it is now. They have ruled that it allows you to not own a sawed off shotgun but that you can own guns that are “for military use” (miller).
Walker you raise a good point on the second part and why hasn’t the NRA filed suit on an assault weapons ban back then?
What do you think? It seems pretty clear from that decision that sawed off shotguns are out but military weapons are in. No?
“In any case, I don’t think the only alternatives are pro- and anti- sources. There have to be some sources out there that are objective.”
Knuck might disagree but the supreme court is about as close as we are going to get. And basically that is what matters not any other analysis.
Walker, part of it may be that the Heller decision making it clear that the 2nd covers self-defense didn’t come down till 2008. Now they have two decisions that put self defense and military type weapons together. That gives them a much better case for overturning a new ban. That is part of why I say maybe we should focus on something like background checks instead.
KHL, You say “RC, it doesn’t help you any but we did some long overdue work on our house last year and this is the first winter ever that I didn’t have to crawl under the kitchen to thaw pipes.”
How long have you and Rancid lived up here in the northern reaches? If y’all are having frozen pipe problems now days what would you have done back in the 50’s, 60’s or 70’s when it actually got cold. By the way there is a new newfangled invention that works as well and is way safer than crawling about with heat shrink guns or propane torches; electrically warmed heat tapes. Of course both the heat gun and the heat tape rely on the availability of electricity and do require crawling about to wrap them around the pipes initially.
“The point is that the supreme court has already ruled on these issues.”
That may be your point, but it has nothing to do with the exchange you keep accusing me of being snarky in. If you are going to continue to try to scold me for a comment, at the very least make sure you read and understand the context of the comment.
In that exchange, the part of the comment I was replying to (and quoted) was about language. RC was not talking about supreme court rulings, he was suggesting that because the amendment uses the words “the people” that it should be crystal clear what its intent was.
In that context, I stand firmly by my comment. Anyone who reads the complete sentence would know that there is more to the language of that amendment than just “the people”
Yes Dave those were separate things.
What do you think about the supreme court rulings? They have probably ready the complete sentance and have ruled that an individual has a right to bear arms for self defense and that guns for “normal military use” are permitted. Again you need to look at not just the amenent language but the rulings the court has made where they have clarified for us what the language means.
Sorry “read” not “ready”, getting late!
dave says:
February 1, 2013 at 2:24 pm
“Dave, New Tork had a 10 round limit on magazine size before the latest law, with limited exceptions. I don’t reducing that by three bullets is going to do anything other than inconvenience a lot of people and cost them money.”
Again, the amount of bullets in a clip is the amount of bullets someone can unload into human beings before they have to take a break to reload.
In Tucson, that break was what allowed the shooter to be stopped. Reducing the number of bullets he had in that clip, even by one, would have saved a live at that shooting.”
One person carrying a gun and killing the shooter could have stopped it too. A mental health system that worked would have stopped it altogether before it even began.
Paul says:
February 1, 2013 at 2:35 pm
“But Dave the point is that I would imagine that no one who is planning on a killing spree will load 7 instead of 10? That part of the law seems nonsensical to me.”
Paul, did you ever consider the law makers all ready thought of that and it’s part of a plan to keep lowering magazine capacity? You know as well as I do some other nut will shoot up a place and then they’ll demand capacity of no more than 3 rounds and there will be another shooting and they’ll demand guns be outlawed altogether.
Walker says:
February 1, 2013 at 2:40 pm
“Yes, it’s pro gun, but the alternative is reading more of what you’re already getting.”
Actually, I’d like to get my info from someone who wasn’t trying to make a case for or against guns– someone who was simply trying to present the truth. I thought the Carl T. Bogus piece was just such a source, and I think Bogus may have thought so too when he wrote it. It was published in a law review after all. But he got snookered by Bellesiles “research”. Sorry to have muddied the water here with it, however briefly.
In any case, I don’t think the only alternatives are pro- and anti- sources. There have to be some sources out there that are objective.”
Objective? Are there any studies that are truly objective? If you take the guncite information and the anti-gun information and compare the two it gives you the middle ground you look for. The news media does not look for middle ground, the anti-gun pundits don’t either. If you want truly objective information then you have to go tot he source material.
dave says:
February 1, 2013 at 2:12 pm
“That makes absolutely no sense in the context of the document. I don’t see how anyone can make the argument that the BoR is about individual liberty and then point to the 2nd and say it’s about gov’ts rights to form a militia. It defies logic and it defies the words of the Founders.”
It is the only place in the document where a right granted to “the people” was qualified by additional language, therefore – those who read complete sentences – take that qualifier into consideration.”
Dave, the 2nd is laid out that way because it addresses two issues- personal liberties and national defense. In either case “the peoples” rights are recognized. People who look beyond 15 second sound bites and can comprehend what they read understand that. You also have to remember that at the time the idea of a standing army was highly disliked by the majority of people.
Read Dave, read!
http://www.guncite.com/journals/hardhist.html
“The second amendment to the Constitution had two objectives. The first purpose was to recognize in general terms the importance of a militia to a free state. This recognition derives from the very core of Classical Republican thought; its “constituency” among the Framers was found primarily among conservatives, particularly Virginia’s landed gentry. Indeed, prior to Virginia’s proposal, no federal ratifying convention had called for such recognition. The second purpose was to guarantee an individual right to own and carry arms. This right stemmed both from the English Declaration of Rights and from Enlightenment sources. Its primary supporters came from the Radical-Democratic movement, whether based among the small farmers of western Pennsylvania or the urban mechanics of Massachusetts. Only by incorporating both provisions (p.60)could the first Congress reconcile the priorities of Sam Adams with those of George Mason, and lessen the “disquietude” both of the Pennsylvania and Massachusetts minorities and those of the Virginia and New York majorities. The dual purpose of the second amendment was recognized by all early constitutional commentators;[264] the assumption that the second amendment had but a single objective is in fact an innovation born of historical ignorance.”
“One person carrying a gun and killing the shooter could have stopped it too. A mental health system that worked would have stopped it altogether before it even began.”
Ah, but two “good” people carrying guns could have killed each other, each mistaking the other for the bad guy shooter, and more could have been killed or wounded in the exchange. Three or more “good guy” shooters could have done more damage than the bad guy intended. The NRA vision of a secure America gives a lot of us Americans the willies!
dave says:
February 1, 2013 at 3:22 pm
“I took some time to read parts of the actual law, and if I am reading it properly, currently owned 10 round magazines were grandfathered in.
So the awkwardness of that part of the law only applies to the grandfathered clips that people may already own – from here on out you can only buy clips that hold 7 rounds.”
No Dave, the mags will have to be permanently altered so they can only hold 7 and not be easily reconfigured to hold more. That is in other parts of the Penal Law already in existence. The mag body is grandfathered but has to be altered permanently.
Actually it’s a well issue at my oldest daughters. I’ve got heat tapes in place, but when the well breaks down it’s just cold, wet, filthy work.
knuckleheadedliberal says:
February 1, 2013 at 6:37 pm
“RC, it doesn’t help you any but we did some long overdue work on our house last year and this is the first winter ever that I didn’t have to crawl under the kitchen to thaw pipes.
And don’t use a torch! I know, everyone does it, I’ve done it myself, but a heat gun works great and you won’t burn your house down.”
Actually it’s a well issue at my oldest daughters. I’ve got heat tapes in place, but when the well breaks down it’s just cold, wet, filthy work.
Paul says:
February 1, 2013 at 10:06 pm
Walker you raise a good point on the second part and why hasn’t the NRA filed suit on an assault weapons ban back then? ”
At the time the NRA did not challenge it because they did not feel the SCOTUS was likely to rule in their favor and because the “sunset” provision was included. That was also the period when the NRA was trying to be “moderate”. They lost a huge amount of people in that era.
Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Walker says:
February 2, 2013 at 9:56 am
“One person carrying a gun and killing the shooter could have stopped it too. A mental health system that worked would have stopped it altogether before it even began.”
Ah, but two “good” people carrying guns could have killed each other, each mistaking the other for the bad guy shooter, and more could have been killed or wounded in the exchange. Three or more “good guy” shooters could have done more damage than the bad guy intended. The NRA vision of a secure America gives a lot of us Americans the willies!”
Or not. Why is it that when some people point out readily seen agendas, like banning guns or recent events where the good guy gun owner didn’t spray down the crowd, they are called wild eyed nuts, but when the other side offers crazy, imaginary scenarios that support their views they are supposed to be given extraordinary credence? The fact is that recently, and throughout past decades, gun owners have stopped crimes in progress. I cannot recall an event like that where the gun owner (good guy, not the bad guy) missed and shot a bunch of bystanders. It’s happened to the police and the criminals do it all the time, but I don’t recall a rash gun owners spraying and praying a crowd.
What is the point of all of this gun control fervor now? Is it to stop mass killings like we have seen; things like Newtown & Virginia Tech? Or is this point to reduce our overall gun death rate, which would include murders and day to day crime? Each of those would require different approaches and I think the first one could be accomplished with background checks and possibly getting rid of large clips and assault rifles.
However punishing hunters and the average legal gun owners will not accomplish either of those.
Now if the goal is to reduce gun ownership rates in the US that would be a different goal and also we are not sure what the impact of that would be on crime and gun murder. We know today that legal family gun ownership rates in a state are not related to gun murders within a state, but maybe who cares, maybe this is not about gun violence but about removing guns?
“I cannot recall an event like that where the gun owner (good guy, not the bad guy) missed and shot a bunch of bystanders. It’s happened to the police…”
That’s because we still (thank god) do not have scores of armed citizens at public events. It came very close to happening at the Giffords shooting. It happens to the police because they constitute a large number of armed people in one place. The more people that carry, the more often it will happen.
Nothing to worry about now, looks like Barack’s really one of us pro-gun people after all.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/us/politics/obamas-skeet-shooting-comments-draw-fire.html?hp
I’ve always found it ironic that liberals, who are usually much more mistrusting of police than conservatives and more in favor of limiting their powers, are somehow more comfortable living in a society where the police are the only ones with access to and the right to use deadly force to protect the rest of us.
It’s a myth that they’re necessarily more qualified to do this. I read a study once, of cop killers in prison. Most of them were ghetto drug dealers — and they were better shots than the police officers they killed, practicing more and actually hitting their target with more of their shots. Because they practiced all the time. Most police only have to qualify what, once or twice a year? Aside from that, if they’re not hunting or shooting on their own time, they’re not shooting their guns. Most people I know who have guns shoot them a heck of a lot more than that.
There have been two recent police shootings where I live. In one, two officers put 15 bullets in a kid with a knife, and another 15 in the wall behind him — at a distance of less than 10 feet, with women and kids upstairs who could’ve been hit by the strays. In the other, a fistfight ended with an unarmed man getting shot in the back. I think your average North Country hunter with a concealed carry permit might’ve handled these situations better.
Ken, there is a good chance that the house I live in now didnt have any pipes in the !850’s, 60’s or 70’s, and might not have in the 1950’s or 60’s but by the 1970’s it probably had the cheap built kitchen addition with a waste pipe that runs out the foundation wall about a foot above ground and then at an angle for about 5 feet before disappearing into a mysterious hole in the ground.
That’s Adirondack. My guess is that most years from the 70’s to the 90’s there was enough snow that the whole thing was insulated and never froze up because warmth from the earth transmitted up from the ground. But the real problem was probably the slow drip from a bad faucet which we replaced.
I could have put heat tape on it, but that’s not the cowboy way.
By the way Ken, I’ve lived here long enough that I remember when they told you it was going to be 20 or 30 below at night and it was actual temperature. We knew enough to cover our skin when it was windy.
US gundeaths since Sandy Hook top 1,280.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/01/us-gun-deaths-sandy-hook_n_2602074.html
US casualties in Afghanistan about 2,100 since 2001.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Forces_casualties_in_the_war_in_Afghanistan
You don’t need US gun deaths, Chicago alone is far more dangerous than Afghanistan.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/16/chicago-homicide-rate-wor_n_1602692.html
OK, here, gathered into one handy page, are 10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down from Mother Jones, an undeniably liberal source. I offer it here mostly for Myth #2: Guns don’t kill people—people kill people, and its chart of Gun Deaths vs. Gun Ownership by State. Mervel, you in particular have stated several times that states with a higher percentage of gun owners are safer than states with lower ownership rates. This contradicts that claim. Would you care to address the data presented here? And RC, there is a statement that ” not one of 62 mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years has been stopped [by an armed “good guy”]. Have you evidence to contradict that claim? There are plenty of links to follow with backup info.
Have at it… shoot holes in it!
Sure walker, what I was looking at was murder rates per-capita and violent crime per capita, not gun deaths, however the article claims they are related, but the data does not seem to back that claim.
For example Wyoming, Idaho Utah all have low murder rates and low violent crime rates overall and have very high gun ownership rates. I am assuming that is the difference, but there is a disconnect there somewhere as violent crime rates are supposed to be related to gun deaths?
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord
http://usliberals.about.com/od/Election2012Factors/a/Gun-Owners-As-Percentage-Of-Each-States-Population.htm
You can see pretty clearly that murder rates and violent crime rates are not related to the percentage of homes with guns, in fact there seems to be an inverse relationship. You are a lot safer living in Utah than Massachusetts. So I am not fully sure about the mother jones statistics on that?
Walker, I understand your point we have a larger number of gun related incidents here in the US than we all would care to have. I have not seen anyone here contradict that point. It seems that you and knuck and others keep making that point which I think we all get it. I get it. Thanks for the link.
It is good and they do a good job by using gun deaths per capita as opposed to numbers.
One interesting point is that Illinois the state with Chicago the one we keep talking about as being very very dangerous is way down on the list. New York is doing very well.
But they have high per capita murder rates .
ray kelly has stated many times that the problem in nyc is illegal handguns.
i’d guess the same for chicago
It kind of makes sense. If you kill yourself in Wyoming you use a gun, in illinois you may take pills. However using a gun to murder is more likely in Illinois than Wyoming on a per capita basis.
An interesting question would be does the availability of guns increase the rate of suicide?
Mervel, from that time article it did look like the suicide rate in Switzerland with a gun was relatively high for such a small country. Can’t say for sure. The number of gun related suicides here is very high. Suicide tends often be a very impulsive thing so having guns around could facilitate that. Again are we now talking about reducing the suicide rates? Like you have said what is this conversation even about?
Two cents yes I agree handguns are the problem in those cities. I would assume that after an assault weapons ban a handgun ban would be the next thing. There has not been a suggestion to consider universal background checks for assault style guns as a solution to that problem so that seems like a logical next step from a gun control perspective.
On the suicide thing as soon as I heard about that recent shooting incident in Saranac Lake in late December I said it had to be an attempted suicide. It was. That guys story was no match for the crime he described. Held up with a 22 rifle in a situation like that? Never.
I see that the comment that started this string got lots of thumbs up. But I am sorry, I still do not support Knuck’s idea of putting armed guards in every school!!
Have fun watching the super bowl commercials tomorrow people!!
Mervel, I don’t think I’d be inclined to go with just the murder rate. One of the chief points is that guns cause a considerable amount of unintentional death and injury, and suicides that might well not have been fatal if not for the use of firearms. Note that in terms of gun deaths, Wyoming is at the top of the chart, Idaho is above average, and Utah is middle of the pack, all of which parallels their gun ownership rates.
Not schools Paul, school buses. There are about 480,000 of them. What a great jobs program that would be, to add almost half a million jobs overnight! Well worth any amount of tax spending!
Hey look! A photo of Obama skeet shooting! I guess all those people at Fox were wrong (believe it or not) there is a photo of Obama shooting a gun.
Look out Tea Party-ers and NRA, Black Panther Prez with a gun!
This story gets even better:
A top official with the National Skeet Shooting Association said the photo suggests Obama is a novice shooter.
“This isn’t something he’s done very often because of how he’s standing, how he has the gun mounted,” said
Michael Hampton, executive director of the San Antonio-based association.
Okay, so the official at the NSSA is a jerk, let’s see what Obama has to say:
“I have a profound respect for the traditions of hunting that trace back in this country for generations. And I
think those who dismiss that out of hand make a big mistake,” Obama said. “Part of being able to move this
forward is understanding the reality of guns in urban areas are very different from the realities of guns in
rural areas. And if you grew up and your dad gave you a hunting rifle when you were 10, and you went out
and spent the day with him and your uncles, and that became part of your family’s traditions, you can see why
you’d be pretty protective of that.”
“So it’s trying to bridge those gaps that I think is going to be part of the biggest task over the next several
months. And that means that advocates of gun control have to do a little more listening than they do
sometimes,” Obama said.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/02/nra-obama-skeet-shooting_n_2608177.html
Note to Board of Directors of the National Skeet Shooting Association:
Fire top official who ridicules the most prominent skeet shooter most people will ever know of instead of using the moment to promote the sport to probably a billion people who will see the photo and might be curious about it.
And think of the lost opportunity to sell guns to all those people who might think, “hey, I’d like to try that sport but they make fun of novices instead of welcoming them.”
Anyone that shoots skeet much leans into the gun. Obamas posture for effective shooting is all wrong. I picked it up right off. So it’s not that the guy is a jerk, it’s just something any shooter would note. Real shooters don’t hold their gun “gangsta style” either.
Walker, as far as armed citizens stopping mass shootings, there was the guy shooting up a mall in December I believe. One armed citizen was going to shoot but held fire waiting for a clear shot. The BG saw him and committed suicide. If can happen, has happened. Why do you fight facts?
Obama is not making any attempts to “bridge” any gaps in the rural-urban divide, anymore than Cuomo is by wearing a flannel shirt.
Hopefully, most people will understand Obama’s skeet photo op for what it really is: a pathetic political move to try to avoid the bind Cuomo has put himself in. I’ve never doubted Obama’s skill as a politician.
“ray kelly has stated many times that the problem in nyc is illegal handguns.”
New York City has a handgun problem? With the (arguably) most restrictive handgun laws in the country in place over a long period of time, you would think there would no longer be much of a problem there, but there certainly is. This is proof positive that anti-gun laws do nothing to make us safer or keep guns out of the hands of those who commit crimes.
Crabtree, the official is a jerk because for one he is putting his organization in a bad light just as you are putting yourself in a bad light when, in fact, you dont know how good a skeet shooter the president is; and because, as anyone with a small understanding of physics can tell you, 1) a gun has recoil, 2) the photograph was obviously taken with a fast shutter speed in order to capture the ejection of smoke. Therefore we can conclude that in the instant of firing Obama’s posture was affected in a way described by Newton’s 3rd Law and captured in a transitional position which may not be detectable by the human eye or processed by the human brain at real life speed.
In other words, neither you nor the NSSA official knows what you’re talking about.
Here’s a link to a golf website that talks about some successful golfers who are doing it all wrong.
http://djbjourno.wordpress.com/2011/03/25/weird-and-wonderful-golf-swings-bubba-watson-tommy-gainey-and-jim-furyk/
Let’s get an official from the PGA to tell us how Bubba Watson is doing it all wrong.
More stuff Obama has done:
Sings Al Green: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2012/0120/Obama-sings-Al-Green.-How-did-he-do-video
I have not heard from Simon Cowell or Randy Jackson about his merits as a professional singer.
Obama dances on Ellen (and punches a speed bag): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsWpvkLCvu4
He’s no James Brown or Muhammad Ali but he CLAIMS he did better than RudY Giuliani.
Obama fishes: Okay, I didnt find any video of him fishing but he has had a fish species named after him.
Obama golfs: http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/18/obama-has-golfed-four-times-more-than-bush-did-in-eight-years/
Apparently Obama golfs LOTS MORE than George Bush.
Obama cuts brush: Okay, Apparently Obama DOES NOT cut brush, certainly not at the skill level of George W.
But maybe if someone asks we will find he cleared a whole field at Camp David while nobody was watching.
What else do people want to know about Obama? I’ll try to answer any questions.
posture and technique aside, at least he hasn’t shot a hunting buddy in the face.