The most recent problem with gun control is one word.... Katrina I am sorry to be in disagreement but In the wake of that recent disaster here saw even liberals standing in line to register for firearms something they wouldn't be able to do if there were stiffer laws that's why there is no stomach for more gun control by law abiding citizens ,,harsher penalties for gun crime yes ..but in light of what happened in France and what happened on the streets of New Orleans I don't think you are going to find many opponents from those affected areas coming to your support on citizen gun control . Blaming crime and rape and property theft on poverty may sell well in areas least affected by a disaster but like flash lights and batteries in makes perfect sense now to own and to operate sensibility a firearm when goods and services are no longer available . We hope you never have to experience this .......as no one likes to be an "I told you so"
> I wanted to comment on your editorializing for stronger gun control.> Personally, I believe that gun restrictions make sense in an urban area,> but am otherwise skeptical about ignoring any part of the Constitution,> even if it makes little sense in today's urban context. Having said that,> I want to share my views as someone who hears from people outside of New> York on the subject of guns with an open mind.>> I think you know that even the most fervent gun lover would gravely lament> the death of any officer. But the perspective that such deaths should> automatically lead to tougher gun laws is so uniquely urban (especially> New York) that my in-laws in Missouri can no more understand the> connection than someone from New York cannot. Here are a few reasons the> New York reaction is often more bothersome to me, even if I don't> necessarily disagree with the impulse behind it.>> The first point, of course, is that pesky 2nd Amendment. Most New Yorkers> seem happy to pretend it doesn't really exist, or that what it says is the> opposite of what it means. Gun lovers properly point out that if you have> a shred of respect for the Constitution, you have some amending to do> before you can implement the policies you really want to see. I have to> agree. I think the tortous arguments to the contrary are, frankly,> dishonest in the extreme.>> Second, there is the big picture--the ratio of bad guys to cops killed by> guns is about 1000-to-1 (and that's not including cops doing the> shooting). For someone who doesn't share a New Yorker's fear and loathing> of guns, it seems hastily knee-jerk to, in one breath, praise cops for> putting themselves in the way of danger every day then, in the next> breath, claim that the occasional one that gets shot justifies taking> everyone's guns away. To someone not conditioned to equating gun violence> with the existence of guns, it seems like quite a leap to ban guns in the> face of occasional gun violence.>> Third, there is the really big picture. There was the Lott and Landes> study on the effect of various public policies on crime--arrest> frequencies, conviction rates, imprisonment, etc.--all over the country> over a couple of decades. One of the clearest conclusions was this: the> rate of multiple homocides was inversely related to the absence of> concealed weapons bans. Anti-gun types are in total denial about these> results. They want to pretend that these researchers are incompetent> (both are in the top 10 of the most downloaded authors in the Social> Science Research Network, one is a Professor at Chicago Law) or in the> pocket of the gun lobby (which they clearly aren't). Their results have> been repeated in dozens of studies (albeit critiqued in several others).>> The speed with which this study is dismissed by the anti-gun groups is as> distasteful to me as a rational person as their blatant disregard of the> Constitution offends me as a citizen. It would be enough for me to root> for the NRA if I wasn't otherwise grounded in a less black and white> reality.
last stats I saw, something like 35,000 Americans are killedEVERY> YEAR in the US> with guns--- that includes homicides, suicides and accidents (someone who> wants to commit> suicide and doesn't have a gun can always jump off a building--- butpulling> a trigger is easier).>> Sort of makes Iraq look puny--- we lost something like 57,000 in Viet Namin> 10 years.>> Stronger gun laws have reduced gun deaths--- look at the figures. Even> accidental shootings---> down from around 2500 a year in the 70s to under 1000 in the late 90s.>> I don't see it as a liberal or conservative issue, despite the NRA and> Second Amendment> purists. Guns don't kill people--- but people with guns DO kill people--- > and shoot cops and> innocent people, too.>> Hinkley wouldn't have been able to do much harm throwing a rock or even a> knife.
Have you ever looked into California movement to code all ammunition? http://www.ammocoding.com/
This year, the Assembly passed:- an antitrafficking bill that increases penalties for illegal gun sales- a bill to strengthen and expand the assault weapons ban- a "sniper rifle" ban to ban .50-caliber military-style weapons- a bill to strengthen the ban on armor-piercing bullets- a bill to protect kids by establishing new crimes against negligent storage of a weapon- a bill to require guns to be equpped with child-resistant safety featuresThe State Senate has refused to vote on any of these bills, EVEN IN COMMITTEE. Yet for some reason you say it's the Assembly holding up progress on gun control. Why? Just because the Governor and the NY Post said you should?
It's time for new faces in Albany. If the GOP can't get a credible candidate to challenge Silver, then Democrats need to force a Primary. If Bruno doesn't head down the path of reform, he needs to be put in retirement. As for the Governor, we know we'll be seeing a new one come January 1, 2007.