Have you not seen Breaking Bad? Box cutters. Box cutters and bike locks. I'll kill a whole mall full of people with a bike lock.

Yes it does. Pretty much everything we as a society permit is a balance of risk vs. benefit. You can't just say that society has a moral obligation to ban everything with any risk at all if you don't personally enjoy it. Some risks are acceptable, and compromise is necessary for a just functioning society.

And you'd be right too, if only there weren't about a million shades between 'doing nothing' and 'banning everything'.

No, It does not really excuse you from doing ANYTHING. Personally I am against banning (with the exception of a select few examples) private ownership of guns, for whatever reason. I think it is a terrible idea. However, I do think it is acceptable, if not mandatory that we take reasonable steps to keep weapons out of the hands of people who should absolutely not have them.

The problem is that any attempt to keep weapons away from the nutjobs and crazies is perceived (at least by the nutjobs running the NRA) as an assault on gun owners. It was stupidly easy for me to get a carry permit in Florida, which also means I don't have a waiting period for handgun purchases anymore (normally 3 days), but I would have no problem if there'd be a couple more hoops or at least better checks to ensure that the next person to get a permit isn't likely to snap.

While I believe and practice the right to carry, I would've liked a requirement to somehow show that I intend to do so lawfully and responsibly instead of just a piece of paper and a simple pistol course.

You had to take a course? What is this, Nazia?

Had to take a class and a range test for mine.

Range test is a joke, you get 20 rounds and have to put 10 in a man shaped target from 15 feet away. The written test was harder.

I got mine by mail from Maine when I was 19.

Here you have to take a full-day course and written test just to be allowed to own a gun. It's like getting your DL.

Here, they've privatized the driver's license testing phase. So if I want to get my license, I have to call around to a bunch of shady driving schools and try to schedule a test with one of them.

-I dunno how it works for guns.

eesh! that sounds almost as bad as having to go to one of the shady DMV's here and trying to schedule a test, then even though you have an appointment still waiting no less than 2 hours in line.

seriously I would just die of excitement if AAA was allowed to facilitate driving test/licencing.

See Jon'C what you just described seems perfectly rational and acceptable even from a gun ownership advocate point of view!

No it doesn't.

It's seems perfectly rational and acceptable from a hobbyist, enthusiast, or even just plain empirical view. Firearm licensing is unacceptable to gun ownership advocates because of paranoids and survivalists who are convinced that licensing is just the gummet putting your name on a **** list.

Speaking as someone who has taken the Canadian courses and tests for both unrestricted and restricted firearms, though, there is absolutely nothing objectionable about it. They mostly teach you how to use guns correctly, how different actions work, how to tell the difference between centerfire and rimfire, why you need to be careful with 3.5" shells and 3" chambers. It gets fairly technical. I like the PAL program a lot but I can see why some Americans might be threatened by it, since judging by how smart most of the gun advocates have historically been on this forum there's a good chance that none of them have the mental discipline to sit through a 2 hour gun chat.

Our pistol course didn't have a written portion but went over mainly safe operation, the basic rules (treat loaded, point safe, finger off, etc), the "correct" way to load pistols/revolvers and only involved putting a handful of rounds down range. The Concealed Carry portion of the course went over the legality of where/when you can/can't carry, when it's legal to draw let alone shoot someone, that it's not a license to be a vigilante, etc.

that you're 4.5 times more likely to get shot just because you're carrying, etc.

Damn. I'm not sure what happened in here earlier but I'm glad it's over and I can come back to this thread.

Existing 10 rd mags are grandfathered and can be kept, but only loaded to 7 rounds. Existing 10+ round mags but be destroyed or sold out of state.




You are certainly 100% correct here, but I stand by what I wrote.

I don't think it's outlandish to suggest that politicians have incentive to confuse the public and spread misinformation (which they are absolutely doing and you seem to know something about guns, so you know it's true) about so called "assault weapons" in an effort to demonize a certain class of firearms. And I know they all talk, so that fits the definition of conspiracy, no?



Even if this were true, it doesn't make it OK. And I'm not a bigot and am offended by the notion that I am simply because I staunchly support gun rights.

I could be mistaken but I don't think Jon'C was actually implying that YOU are a biggot. But I have to at least partially agree with him. The current head of the NRA is in fact bat**** crazy.

Agreed...he's doing gun owners NO favors.

Yeah. I would agree that certain politicians have incentive to focus on anti-gun laws. Gabbie Giffords would be one of them. What the hell does she know about gun violence?

Know your audience.

yeah gosh it's like getting shot in the head by a schizophrenic freeper makes you dislike guns, schizophrenics, and freepers.

He really doesn't. Even Ann Coulter thinks the guy is mental.

yeah, except HIS actual audience would probably consist of, well... Jared Loughner.

Wayne LaPierre is a career lobbyist. His actual audience is any media organization that will talk about the NRA, whether it's good or bad. All that matters to LaPierre is that the NRA's name says in the press as an advocate for firearm owners, because their revenue comes from membership fees.

Painting gun owners as selfish children who would gladly sacrifice the first amendment for the second actually works in his favour here. In fact I'd go so far as to say that the NRA wants severe (ideally unconstitutional) restrictions, because it will motivate indifferent firearm owners to join.

No doubt severe restrictions can be a long term gift to gun owners. Incrementalism is how the anti-gun side will get their way. They have already shot themselves in the foot a few times by going too far with restrictions and having entire sections of code struck down. 1 step forward is 1 step forward, but 5 steps forward is 10 steps back.

See Illinois for example. The 7th circuit ruled that they prevented all forms of "bearing arms" because they outlawed open carry and concealed carry. They were given 180 days until their concealed carry ban was erased and therefore had that much time to draft a shall-issue license-to-carry bill, or else concealed firearms carry would revert to completely unregulated.

If they had stuck with some asinine "unloaded open carry of long-guns only" or similar law, they'd probably still have it.

I personally believe the NY law will prove to be one of these gifts.