SAFE Act: Gun groups say data shows low compliance

[Nuclear Unicorn]

SAFE Act: Gun groups say data shows low compliance

ALBANY – About 44,500 assault weapons have been registered in New York since a new gun-control law was enacted in 2013, records released by State Police to a gun-rights group this week showed.

The Shooters Committee on Public Education, a gun-rights group based in western New York, successfully sued after the state refused to release the details. Now the group claimed that the statistics showed what they suspected: Few gun owners are complying with the SAFE Act adopted by Gov. Andrew Cuomo and the state Legislature in January 2013.

The total number of applications to register assault weapons in New York was 25,536.

"The majority of gun owners and sportsmen in New York have absolutely no respect for this law," said Stephen Aldstadt, the group's president.

The group said that estimates have showed that there about 1 million assault weapons in New York, so if that's the case, about 4 percent were registered as required under the SAFE Act. But gun-control advocates said there is no way of knowing how many assault weapons exist in New York.

http://www.pressconnects.com/story/news/politics/2015/06/23/safe-act-data-low-compliance/29188575/

I'm curious to know why the state had to be sued into providing the information. Are they that embarrassed by their failures? And if it's this bad in NY what does that portend for registration efforts in less blue-friendly environs?

[DonP]

1. Obviously all those "gun criminals" need to be arrested and their homes tossed by state troopers

All their guns and anything else the state wants or feels they don't "need" should also be confiscated. Like their cans of beans and bicycle tires so they can't assault anyone with those either.

Now I expect Governor "7 rounds", who pushed this through in the middle of the night so he could look "tough" and be first with a new gun law, will be personally kicking a few doors to show how supportive he is of this.

That's the only way to treat these law breakers.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

2. Just my humble opinion

The SAFE Act is another turd in the bowl of uselessness.

[Duckhunter935]

3. Not very surprised

I too find it interesting the state had to be sued. If it was such a success, they would be advertising it.

Bet a bunch of tragic boating accidents have happened resulting in the loss of weapons.

[Lurks Often]

4. There are no hard numbers, but non compliance in CT appears to be similar

and from what I've heard, the arguments from the NY & CT state attorney's was rather weak.

[Cassidy1]

5. Oh, I get it.

"The majority of gun owners and sportsmen in New York have absolutely no respect for this law," said Stephen Aldstadt, the group's president.

Pass a legit law they don't like and they can ignore it. Meanwhile, thousands die from gun violence. I say crack down with enforcement and see how much they have "respect for this law."

[DonP]

6. I bet you feel the same way about Federal drug laws too, right?

After all the law is the law and all those pot smokers belong in Club Fed, right?

Or does your respect for law and order not quite stretch that far?

[Cassidy1]

18. Why would you bet that?

[beevul]

7. Define "legit". N/T

[Cassidy1]

21. There's a new invention out now.

It's called a dictionary.

[beevul]

23. Does it read minds?

A dictionary can't tell me how YOU define the word when you use it.

[Cassidy1]

24. Do

I read minds?

I can't tell what you mean when your posting is lazy.

[beevul]

26. No, thats not what I meant. Can the dictionary read minds?

No, thats not what I meant. Can the dictionary read minds?

No? It can't?

Then how could it possibly tell me what YOU mean when you use the word 'legit'?

[Cassidy1]

30. Can I read minds?

[GGJohn]

38. Why do you keep repeating yourself?

Can you answer a simple question?

[Cassidy1]

39. If a simple question can be composed,

then I will answer it.

[beevul]

70. How do you define the word "legit" as used by you originally? N/T

[Cassidy1]

72. Dictionaries are even on the internet.

If you're too lazy to frame a question, then I can't help you.

[beevul]

73. In other words, you're trolling.

See our SOP:

Statement of Purpose

Discuss gun politics, gun control laws, the Second Amendment, the use of firearms for self-defense, and the use of firearms to commit crime and violence.

You're stirring shit, friend, as opposed to making anything resembling a reasonable effort to discuss.


If you're too interested in trolling and stirring shit to engage in discussion, then you are in violation of our SOP.

[Cassidy1]

78. So you don't have an answer,

and you start throwing around the accusations. If you don't want to discuss, then don't discuss. Don't however, continue to discuss and toss out insults.

[Cassidy1]

79. AND, for those too lazy to pick up a dictionary:

Legitimate. Definition: Conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules or standards.

Tell me how this law did not conform to this definition.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

74. He's been asking you to provide an example for your use of the word "legit"

Many duly enacted laws are not legit and the NY Safe Act is questionable considering the lack of debate and the fact it was passed in the dead of night to keep the constituents from registering their dissatisfaction.

[beevul]

75. Ya know, its funny you say that. I smell an OP coming on.

Do you mind if I quote that?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

76. I'm sincerely flattered. Please feel free. nt

[Cassidy1]

77. Where was the lack of debate?

Can you document that? People often have a chance to show up or participate but never do.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

80. "People often have a chance to show up or participate but never do."

That implies you believe there is a reasonable period of time to notify the public of a proposed bill and time is set aside for public comment -- which would be fair.

How much time do you think would be reasonable to allow for people to be notified and then allowed to show-up and participate?

[Cassidy1]

81. You tell me where the process was not followed in this bill.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

82. NY Safe Act or yogurt: Which was debated longer on state Senate floor?

NY Safe Act or yogurt: Which was debated longer on state Senate floor?

SYRACUSE, N.Y. -- The New York State Senate on Tuesday approved yogurt as the official state snack.

Hold your applause. The New York State Assembly must also approve the legislation, and Gov. Andrew Cuomo must sign it into law, before yogurt makers and eaters can truly celebrate.

But the fun, lively and appetizing debate on yogurt brought about an interesting question: Did the state's senators spend more time on Tuesday debating the calorie counts, lactose tolerance and inclusiveness of snacks than they did discussing the NY Safe Act back in January 2013?

The answer is yes. The yogurt debate and vote took about 44 minutes. The Safe Act? Just less than 30 minutes.


http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2014/05/ny_safe_act_or_yogurt_which_got_more_debate_time_in_state_senate.html

Less than 30 minutes. Per your previously stated standard do you think the public or dissenting opinions were given the opportunity to participate in the process?

My guess is you're satisfied with the result despite the dubious nature of the proceedings simply because you favor the outcome. Were the law something along the lines of DOMA perhaps you would question the legitimacy of the law.

But it these sorts of double-standards that make the Controllers so untrustworthy. These are not laws passed by the consent of the governed; these are laws by authoritarians for authoritarians and the nature of their actions betray their consciousness of their guilt.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

28. When I took your statement calling people traitors at its dictionary definition

you told me to lighten up.

You seem to want the privilege to switch between metaphorical terms and literal terms to weasel out of your own statements.

[Cassidy1]

31. Not even sure what you're talking about

[gejohnston]

8. and what about the ones who are actually committing gun violence?

the local drug dealers and gang members? The people this law targets are not the ones who are the problem.
Question: Do you smoke pot? If so, please explain the hypocrisy. How do you feel about civil disobedience in general?

[Cassidy1]

19. No, I don't smoke pot.

What hypocrisy?

[benEzra]

9. And what, exactly, does legislation restricting rifle handgrip shape have to do with that?

Rifles are involved in less than 300 murders annually, out of 12,000+, and handgrip shape is absolutely irrelevant. Not to mention the silliness of restricting gun magazines to less than half the capacity that has been mainstream since the 1860s.

Out of 682 murders in the state of New York in 2012, only 11 involved any type of rifle.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/20tabledatadecpdf

The SAFE Act is a ludicrous piece of legislation written by people who don't know much about guns and gun violence and don't care to learn, but who despise peaceable gun owners and wanted to stick it to them. It also shows gun owners nationwide what the pile of rubble at the bottom of the slippery slope looks like.

Many NY law enforcement groups and local governments warned that this law was unworkable, unenforceable, and ridiculous, but were shouted down. As it turns out, they were right.

[Lurks Often]

11. A number of NY Sheriff's have publicly stated that they will not enforce the law

I've heard rumors that large numbers of rank & file NY State Police troopers feel the same way.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

12. "I say crack down with enforcement"

How?

[DonP]

15. Door to door searches led by Cuomo personally!

No vests, just kick and go in warrantless and angry.

After all you can't let due process stand in the way with gun nutz.

[Cassidy1]

20. Seems to me the angry people are the gun owners

[DonP]

25. What do we have to be angry about? We've won at every turn for 20 years

It's the control people that are going bat shit crazy losing court cases, can't get shit done in legislatures and now all 50 states have concealed carry and violent crime continues to fall.

We do get frustrated at the stupidity of some people that don't even know the current laws or how poorly some of them are enforced.

But then we go out to the range with friends and family and feel better.

[Cassidy1]

32. You tell me

what you're angry about. I see a lot of angry gun owners.

[GGJohn]

42. No, we're not,

we're actually LOL'ing at you and your cohorts who think you're making progress on gun control when in reality, the opposite is true, but if it floats your boat to believe that we're angry, have at it.

[Cassidy1]

46. Who are my cohorts?

They're certainly not angry conservative types getting off on guns.

[GGJohn]

50. And neither are us liberal gun owners.

Cohorts, as in those on this board that are in lockstep with your views on civilian firearm ownership.

[Cassidy1]

54. Yes, I can tell you're not liberal.

More like libertarian.

[GGJohn]

83. Sorry dude, but you don't know the definition of liberal,

just because you don't agree with me on the issue of the 2A doesn't mean I'm not liberal, I'll be willing to bet my pension that I'm far more liberal on most issues than you are.

[Cassidy1]

86. Fire away

[Cassidy1]

35. I just reread post 10.

It says you people are angry.

[GGJohn]

44. In what fucking world do you interpret that as angry?

Maybe you should look in a mirror.

[Cassidy1]

48. It used the word "angry."

[GGJohn]

51. Wow!!!!

Talk about taking a statement out of context.

[Cassidy1]

55. How so?

They said it.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

66. Angry as a reaction to laws passed without their consent that offend their values.

Which is interesting because that shows gun control laws are actually the driving force for more weapons in the hands of people and it's making those people angry. Obviously gun control advocates are their own worst enemies.

[Cassidy1]

22. Enforce the law.

Like any other.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

27. Like the drug war?

[Cassidy1]

33. People using drugs don't hurt others like people with guns do.

[GGJohn]

43. Really?

Tell that to a family that has a member who's an addict and steals everything from them to fuel their habit.
Tell that to the family of the victim that was assaulted and or killed so a junkie can their next fix.
Tell that to the family of the victims of the war on drugs.

Your statement is at best laughable, at worse a lie.

[Cassidy1]

47. You're not talking about the act in and of itself.

[GGJohn]

49. Are you really that naive? eom.

[Cassidy1]

58. Naive about what?

That people like you are destroying the country? And have the nerve to call yourselves Democrats? FDR would be spinning.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

65. "FDR would be spinning"

Eleanor carried a gun.

[Cassidy1]

87. Eleanor is not Franklin

[Nuclear Unicorn]

88. According to you Eleanor is one of the people destroying this country. Yet she's considered

a icon for women and Democrats.

[GGJohn]

84. FDR would be spinning?

Dude, you're hilarious, but you really need to refine your trolling skills.
Here's a little tidbit for you, FDR's wife, Eleanor, had a CCW for NY state, she was an avid shooter.

Your post is an EPIC FAIL.

[Cassidy1]

85. FDR

Not Eleanor.

[gejohnston]

89. Not Eleanor

FDR

[Cassidy1]

126. Looks like he's shooting clay targets.

Not exactly the same thing as what I said.

[oneshooter]

129. He is at Parris Island Marine base and is shooting a 1903 Springfield rifle in 30-o6 caliber.

He is at the 200yds butts.

[virginia mountainman]

125. WRONG....Let me shine some light of truth on the subject.

[Cassidy1]

127. What did I say that was wrong?

I was talking about Franklin, not Eleanor.

[sarisataka]

128. Still asking questions

without answering:

Now why do you believe POC are so disproportionately supportive of the MIC and foreign intervention?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=170172

[Cassidy1]

130. Who said they are supportive?

I said they join because they have no other or no better options.

[sarisataka]

131. You also stated

The solider who joins today is just as culpable as the politicians and the generals

And

I also don't see how you separate foreign policy from people who carry it out. They are both in the same bucket.

Now many POC may not have good choices but they do have other options.

Just like the white kid from Wherethehellarewe, WV. Coal mining sucks but he makes the choice to join the military.

So are they equally culpable for choosing the military instead of a limted job or is one more culpable than the other?

[Cassidy1]

132. So do I now have to reply to all your straw men?

Or, worse yet, when you claim I said or believe something that I did not say or remotely imply. As in your saying:

"Now why do you believe POC are so disproportionately supportive of the MIC and foreign intervention?"

I never said or implied that, but you go on without addressing it.

You also said culpable. I never used that word or the word blame. That's on you.

Yes, you are responsible for the decisions you make. That includes recruiting some practically kid out of high school by telling him about all the exotic adventures he will have in foreign lands.


And what's with the coal mining reference? You sound like these white dunces who say, "Dude, my job sucks just about as much as being a slave."

[sarisataka]

133. No straw men, just logically following your statements

that POC have a higher percentage in the military than the overall population and any soldier who joins is as culpable as the General or politician.

Ergo- POC have a high support of the MIC than the population at large.


The coal mining reference was simply an analogy to a POC of say Dretoit, with very limited job opportunities. You can change it to a farm kid seeing the land bought up by conglomerates- the farm kid then can be any color you choose. Does he work a marginal family farm, become a corporate wage slave or join the military?

This kid is as culpable as Bush II and his court for Iraq? Does the color of his skin change his culpability?

[Cassidy1]

134. There's that word again that I did not use.

Culpable. Sort of like "exotic adventures."

And speaking of logic and following mine, you might want to look up the word "ergo."

[sarisataka]

135. "ergo"

Definition of ERGO

: therefore, hence

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ergo

"Culpable"

The solider who joins today is just as culpable as the politicians and the generals

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=170034
That looks like your post...

[Cassidy1]

136. Culpable means deserving blame.

Now you're just making up sentences and putting them in blocks like I said them.

Do you take ANY responsibility for anything you do?

[sarisataka]

137. Follow the link

It goes to your post.

I am quoting your words. Do you deny posting them?

Do you take ANY responsibility for anything you do?

[Cassidy1]

138. Ah, you are correct.

My mistake. So, do you disagree with the sentiment? Why is it that people like you are so quick to point the finger? You stay in an organization where everybody is to blame but you. The general is on the sly, trying to get a consulting job. The defense contractor is milking the military. Your privates are fuck ups because they can't hang on to their equipment.

Meanwhile, you must be some neutral party, while continuing to interfere in the affairs of other countries. Hussein and Iraq. Nice job. Afghanistan. Nice job. What will be the next fuck up? You know, the one where people can worship their heroes at the next NFL game?

[sarisataka]

139. I previously answered your questions

You get to answer now.

Is the black kid from Detroit, the white kid from West Virginia and the kid of undetermined skin color from Farmland USA all culpable for Iraq?

Which one is least culpable?

As we agreed, POC are over-represented in the military. Are POC more culpable for the MIC and our foreign interventions?

[Cassidy1]

140. No, you did not answer my questions.

You answered by whining about the general, the contractors, and your privates. That is not an answer.

The question remains: Why do you stay in an organization where everyone is full of blame but you? Are you least culpable?

[sarisataka]

141. Ok one more answer...

Why do you stay in an organization where everyone is full of blame but you?

Unlike you I don't cast a blame net trying to catch every fish in the sea. I see lots of good people in a system working against their best interest; even against the system's interest.

So do I turn my back, walk away and say 'not my problem' or try to make an iota of change? I am not the walk away type. If I see a problem but do not try to change it, then I am indeed culpable.

Also it was a job that, for good or ill, I was very good at. By using my talents and working with other good people, we could make a difference and save lives. In two wars, my units lost only one person.

Saving lives extends to the other side as well. There is more than one way to win a battle. Less killing means winning more hearts and minds. Units I served with took far more prisoners than inflicted casualties. We received humanitarian awards for food distribution, including from our own supplies.

As a result our areas were among the most peaceful. Not because of being heavy handed but by showing compassion and humanity. None of us started the war, and really didn't want to be there, but rather than walk away and washing our hands we worked within the system to minimize the damage.

I have no shame for what I have done.


So how do you see my example recruits? Are they all culpable?

[Cassidy1]

142. Not sure what you mean when you ask

"So do I turn my back, walk away and say 'not my problem' or try to make an iota of change?"

You willingly joined an organization where (I would think) you knew what you were getting into. We now have such history that NO ONE who is 18 years old has an excuse not to know what is happening. Eisenhower warned of this problem. It was reinforced by Vietnam. You also have the internet, forums, etc. to gather even more information. Instead of learning anything however, people chose to bury their heads or do the opposite.

I really hope you did not buy into the "winning hearts and minds" tagline. I sincerely hope you're not buying into now. People confuse a cheering village with broad change. Of course you can connect with some villager and kids and bring a smile to the faces of some people. That however, is not "winning hearts and minds" in a political sense. That phrase is now a colossal joke and I can't believe that people are still naive or disingenuous enough to use it (okay, maybe I can believe it).

Going into war does not save lives. It means lives will be lost. It's like the cashier who says, "You saved $15 today," when you just spent a hundred. Yeah that's a pithy example for comparison, but at least I will tell you like it is.

I did not say you should have shame. If however, you believe that you changed hearts and minds in the big picture or think that a war saves lives, then that is a problem.

I don't know you personally. People get caught up in all kinds of situations. Sometimes shit does happen. A lot.

I'm saying however, that I am not going to stand by and salute "heroes" who don't learn from history, don't acknowledge wrongdoing, don't acknowledge mistakes, justify their actions with silly propaganda tag lines, etc. The military is not some abstract entity of "they," or, in your words, "None of us started the war,..."

I have a real problem with that last sentence because SOMEBODY started the war, but most will not own up to that beginning or it's perpetuation. It's reflected in the mantra I hear from soldiers all the time: "We're fighting for our freedom." If they are saying that, then they are either mentally deficient or spouting baloney.

I would certainly like to know how we are fighting for our freedom. No one has been able to answer that yet, but these people claim it's so. Yet, they are somehow not responsible for starting a war or perpetuating it. These are the people we label "heroes."

[sarisataka]

143. I am reminded of a quote,

Ghandi I believe, that goes -'War is inevitable if one side wishes it.'
What to do when your side wishes it?

In a similar vein, when people wave signs saying 'War is not the answer" my reply is what was the question?

As for winning hearts and minds- think of the mosaic pictures. Many little pictures go into making up the overall picture. Soldiers do not control the overall picture but, to agree with you somewhat, they are a part of the overall picture. All they can influence is their own tiny little photo.

To continue the analogy, it is all of the civilians who are supplying the film for the photos. You may protest the picture, disagree with it, criticize the artist but you are still involved, like it or not.

You keep coming back to "heroes". I have never met a person who seeks that title out. You seem to hold the soldiers responsible but that is also a part of the system. If a troop is told go march in a parade s/he marches in the parade. Some do enjoy the attention but they do not consider themselves "heroes". If you don't want to salute, fine; I never asked you to. I hate dog and pony shows. Culver's military discount is enough for me; I like frozen custard.

"We're fighting for our freedom." I bet you have seen that on TV. Have you ever watched Bull Durham? Kevin Costner gives the new pitcher this advice:

Crash Davis: You're gonna have to learn your clichés. You're gonna have to study them, you're gonna have to know them. They're your friends. Write this down: "We gotta play it one day at a time."
Ebby Calvin LaLoosh: Got to play... it's pretty boring.
Crash Davis: 'Course it's boring, that's the point. Write it down.

Do you think players say that in the locker room? No, when cameras are rolling they stick to meaningless toss off cliches. The same goes for soldiers. They would love to say, "This sucks. I have sand in my ass crack and there isn't a beer within a thousand miles." but it would be like the baseball player "Our manager is a drunk who doesn't know what city we are playing in." Both are likely true but will have repercussions. Boring is safe. Like baloney.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to have the impression that if simply no one joined the military there would be no more war. That is a false hope for three reasons:
1- as you alluded, and I have argued, people join for many reasons. No one is joining thinking about meta issues and world peace.
2- a percentage to believe in patriotism and service. they may not agree with everything we are doing but believe in the long run it will all turn out good.
3- if somehow the recruit pipeline would dry up, the draft would be reinstated.

[Cassidy1]

144. I actually now

hear people on the street saying, "We're fighting for our freedom." I ask them about. They seem to believe it, but can't explain beyond the mantra.

So, I think it goes beyond the industry playbook. Athletes say they give 110% because it's in their script. I don't however, hear anyone outside sports uttering the same 110% mantra.

It seems your military script is qualitatively different than your Bull Durham script.



No, I don't think no military means no war, since that is putting the cart before the horse. You first have a need, then you fulfill that need. Our military is an institution of a nation that has seen better days. It's in search of a purpose and glory days, much like many lost Americans who don't remotely begin to understand what it actually means to "serve."

[Straw Man]

53. I see.

You're not talking about the act in and of itself.

Are you proposing that owning a gun is a violent act in and of itself?

[Cassidy1]

57. Guns are for doing damage.

Weed is just to get high. Big difference.

[Duckhunter935]

62. what about other drugs?

[Straw Man]

63. Weed and guns.

Guns are for doing damage.

Weed is just to get high. Big difference.

And in buying weed, you are helping to fund some of the most apocalyptically violent criminal organizations this planet has ever seen. If you are weed smoker and you buy your drugs on the street, then you have blood on your hands: innocent blood, too, as the violence goes far beyond gang-on-gang stuff.

On the other hand, I have never harmed anyone with a gun, and I have no intention of doing so. My guns are for recreation and for the very, very slim possibility that I would have to defend my life.

[Straw Man]

52. Really?

What about the violence wreaked by those who provide the drugs, fueled by the dollars of American drug users?

Toke away peacefully, hypocrites.

[Cassidy1]

56. How do they wreak violence?

And no, I'm not clicking on a link with no identified URL.

[Straw Man]

61. You've never heard of cartels?

Where have you been?

And no, I'm not clicking on a link with no identified URL.

It's just a Google image search on "cartel violence." Do it yourself.

[Cassidy1]

92. If it were legal,

then violence would not happen. Just like prohibition. Not the same with guns though. The Australia example of tough gun laws resulting in lower gun violence shows that.

[gejohnston]

93. there is a logical fallacy called

card stacking. There is also post hoc ergo propter hoc. In Australia, gun laws were always tough (relative to the US) before the National Firearms Agreement. The murder rate also started dropping several years before the law was passed. While it is true that the murder rate dropped after the NFA. What they forgot to mention is that it was dropping before then too. That was the card stacking. The post hoc ergo propter hoc, well speaks for itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1736501,00.html
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/aussiegc.html

While there are about three million legally registered guns in Australia, the Australian Federal Police doesn't have the slightest idea how many illegal guns are smuggled in or manufactured basement factories. One in ten guns taken from crime scenes and busts are the latter, often homemade open bolt sub-machine guns.

[Cassidy1]

116. "wikipedia" is not a legit source

I stopped there.

[gejohnston]

117. It explains the logical fallacy correctly

here is another explanation
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/post-hoc/

BTW, Slate isn't real journalism either.

[Cassidy1]

122. I'm not reading

logical fallacies dot info. Put it in your own words. Don't know Slate. What is that?

[Lizzie Poppet]

121. "Poisoning the well" - another fallacy.

Do keep going. This is amusing.

[Cassidy1]

123. Yes, quite amusing

Thanks.

[Straw Man]

114. Eh?

If it were legal,

then violence would not happen. Just like prohibition. Not the same with guns though.

Ending the prohibition of "soft drugs" would certainly take the wind out of the cartels' sales. But do you really think that making guns illegal would eliminate criminal violence? That's a rather naive viewpoint.

Guns are legal for all but "prohibited persons." Sadly, those are the people committing the bulk of gun crimes. Making guns illegal for everyone would create one of the biggest black markets the world has ever seen. Just like prohibition.

The Australia example of tough gun laws resulting in lower gun violence shows that.

That's far from a forgone conclusion. See below:

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1736501,00.html

[Cassidy1]

115. I don't think you people get it.

[friendly_iconoclast]

118. So what? What privileges your views above ours?

Oh, yeah...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit

[GGJohn]

119. The only person not getting here is you.

[Straw Man]

120. Is that supposed to be an answer?

C'mon now. Show us your rhetorical skills. Emoticons are for amateurs.

[Cassidy1]

124. Another master of perception

[Straw Man]

145. More snark, devoid of content.

Dismissed.

[oneshooter]

90. Here then.

https://www.google.com/search?q=cartel+violence&espv=2&biw=1369&bih=726&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=kK2LVZmhJoS_ggTStoGACA&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&dpr=1

[Cassidy1]

91. A bunch of Google images?

You must be on the debate team.

[GGJohn]

94. And you must be on the tro....g team.

It's so obvious what you're trying to do here, you're just lousy at it.

[Cassidy1]

95. What is obvious?

That I don't hero worship the military?

[GGJohn]

96. I could care less if you worship or don't worship our nation's Military,

what I do care about is when you flat out lie about the instutition I spent my entire career in.

And to answer your question, the obvious attempt to try to get a hide or ban, but, dude, you are really lousy at this game you play.

Come to think of it, you do sound familiar. Something to ponder.

[Cassidy1]

97. Where am I lying?

[GGJohn]

99. Every thing coming out of your mouth on this thread.

But you know what? You bore the hell out of me with your obvious attempt to get a hide or a ban.
Notice you've yet to deny it.
Pure comedy gold.

[Cassidy1]

100. I don't even know what the hell you're talking about.

Sounds to me like you're hiding. And why would I want to get banned? (Not that I care because these forums are a dime a dozen.)

[GGJohn]

101. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

Too fucking funny.

[Cassidy1]

102. I thought I was boring you.

I'd hate to see you when you're giddy.

[GGJohn]

103. Oh, I just can't resist when I see such bull excrement,

I just have to LOL.

[Lurks Often]

105. He does sound familar........maybe a calculuz professor?

Avoids answering questions, pretends to be confused, misrepresents and outright lies about what other posters say, changes the goal posts on a regular basis. Hmm, very familiar indeed.

[GGJohn]

106. My thoughts exactly. eom.

[oneshooter]

108. No, you asked for the url, and so I got the information for you.

A simple "Thank You" instead of an insult would have been nice.

Typical of the gun grabbers, they know naught of politeness.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

64. That's not what I asked. I asked if you would enforce your gun control laws like the drug war.

[hack89]

67. Drugs kill more people in my state than guns.

many more with this heroin epidemic we are fighting. Alcohol would be second.

[Cassidy1]

98. What heroin epidemic?

Drug use and abuse is generally down since the 1960s.

[hack89]

104. There have been 51 overdose deaths in Rhode Island this year.

217 deaths in Massachusetts. Last year was just as bad.

[Cassidy1]

107. That does not say anything about trends.

Drug use and abuse is generally down since the 1960s.

[hack89]

109. So are gun deaths

I guess there is nothing to be concerned about if trends are what matter.

[hack89]

110. Drug Overdose Deaths On The Rise In The U.S.

Deaths by drug overdose have been on the rise in the United States, with a majority of states recording increases from 2009 to 2013, according to a study released on Wednesday.

Across the country, 44,000 people died from drug overdoses in 2013, more than double the number in 1999, the study by the non-profit group, Trust for America's Health found. Nearly 52 percent of the deaths were related to prescription drugs.

The number of overdose deaths increased in 26 states in the four years to 2013, the study found, and decreased in only six states.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/17/drug-overdose-deaths_n_7603302.html

[Cassidy1]

111. Four years is not a trend

I said go back to the 1960s. That's a trend. All of this is down.

[hack89]

112. So the crack epidemic of the 90's never happened?

That massive spike in drug use that coincided with a most violent period in recent American history? Ok.

[Straw Man]

36. Uh, no, you don't "get it."

Pass a legit law they don't like and they can ignore it. Meanwhile, thousands die from gun violence. I say crack down with enforcement and see how much they have "respect for this law."

Thousands die? Not by assault weapons. FBI stats show approximately 400 deaths per year from all rifles, including "assault weapons."

Legit law? It was fast-tracked by a gubernatorial "message of necessity," skipping the customary review period. Most of those voting on the bill hadn't read it. The governor's appeal to urgency fails under scrutiny when you realize that the major provisions of the law didn't take effect for a year, and some of the lesser provisions have still not been implemented, two-and-a-half years later.

The governor did a lot of backroom arm-twisting to get this one through, and the backlash cost some upstate reps their seats. It has had no appreciable effect on crime or murder rates, but has caused some gun-related businesses to close and others to leave the state. 52 out of 62 counties in New York State have passed resolutions opposing the SAFE Act. It is culture war at its worst.

Crack down with enforcement? How? Go door-to-door without probable cause, kicking ass and taking names? Yeah, that's progressive.

[benEzra]

113. NY had 682 murders in 2012. All rifles COMBINED accounted for 11.

So passing a law to ban a million rifle handgrips that stick out made perfect sense...

[virginia mountainman]

10. It surprises me to find people actually surprised by this outcome?

Seems like they have a major credibility problem in NY. Now I wonder if they have the will to start "enforce" the law, on a wide spread basis? I wonder how many new gun rights advocates will be created when productive people are arrested for "not registering" their guns, or for having a box with a spring in it that is too big?? And it starts showing up on the nightly news, with distraught families wondering why "daddy and Mommy was arrested"??

Enforcing the SAFE act would be a political disaster.. Like most of the recent gun control that has been passed in a few states.

Just for the record, I know personally several New York union guys, that now own the "banned" items, One even bought one BECAUSE it was going to be banned... NOT A SINGLE ONE has complied, and yes they know the consequences, and they view it as THEIR RIGHT. They are angry, and for lack of a better term "don't give a f**k what law they pass now".. Nice move NY!!

Unfortunately this also has had the effect, of almost to the last one, of changing their political affiliation.

Was it worth it? Passing a law, that only a tiny percentage will comply with, that many law enforcement agencies intensely dislike, that you don't dare enforce, and will have no effect on the problem at hand, and, pisses off a large chunk of your supporters? By passing BS laws like the SAFE act, they have destroyed RESPECT for the law, this is creating a much larger problem than they realize in the long run.

Only in "Gun Control" circles is that considered "a win".

[appal_jack]

13. Excellent analysis/summary, virginia mountainman

Thankfully, I do not live in NY, so this argument is purely hypothetical for me. But it strikes me as reasonable for a number of peaceable NY gun owners to come to the conclusion that this 'SAFE' law is unconstitutional, and thus ignoring it is a logical thing to do.

Sure, the better course of action is to lawyer up and sue. And yes, choosing to instead ignore a law can bring bad consequences. But in this case, where you might be one among hundreds of thousands of civilly disobedient citizens, the risk of defying a hard to enforce law is probably small. And most of us have jobs, limited resources, etc. that make a court battle unappealing.

I also agree that alienating regular folks from progressive causes by flogging pointless gun control measures is a stupid, stupid tactic.

-app

[Nuclear Unicorn]

14. "that you don't dare enforce"

The only thing more impotent than a threat not made is a threat not enforced; because then they know you're bluffing and that turns disrespect into contempt.

[Cassidy1]

34. What does mean

changing "political affiliation." I'm guessing they went over to the militia and racist loving "libertarians" or similar.

[virginia mountainman]

37. Nope they became independant..

They are now very open to "other" parties since our big tent, inclusive one, clearly does not like, or understand them, and nice touch, mixing them in with the "racists". Shows just how "tolerant" you are of other people. Bigotry comes in many forms.

But hey how many more congressional seats do we need we only lost 63 in the house and 6 in the senate in 2010.

Go ahead, these where ALL strong Union members and they WHERE Democrats.. So go ahead "run them off". Where do you think they will go?

[Cassidy1]

40. Not sure who you're talking about now.

Are you talking about specific people, such as ones you know? Or are you talking in general? A lot of people claim the "independent" label because it sounds cool, so that term could be meaningless.

[virginia mountainman]

41. I know those people I posted about on a PERSONAL, and PROFESSIONAL basis.

I call one of them in particular, a CLOSE friend. They are all, dues paying union members in a professional trade.

It is NOT a "cool" label to them, they feel that our party turned it's back on them, and rightly so.. They to a man, supported Obama in his last two elections. Before all this "gun control" craze, they where "default" Democrats. Because of ignorant people in our party, they are not default Democrats, Not anymore.

Now they are independent, they are now open to other candidates, over this very issue.

Your response when learning about them being "open" to other candidates, is to lump them in with the Militia, and racists?!

It amazes me that some in our party would call people that are simply"open" to other candidates that. Seems like a great way to assure no one would support YOUR candidate. Are you actively trying to drive people away from our party? Are you that beholden to the party, that you wont question them when they do stupid things?

Keep in mind, for the past few election cycles, we are bleeding seats like crazy in most of the nation.

[Cassidy1]

45. Okay, fine.

What candidates are they open to?

[virginia mountainman]

59. One that would not tolerate people calling them racists, or Milita, for daring to consider...

another candidate to start with...

[Cassidy1]

60. Of course not.

Not when the politician wants the vote.

Who are you talking about anyway?

[beevul]

16. The elephant in the room.

The masses who are deliberately not complying with the safe act, and the similar laws passed elsewhere, are sending a message.

But, is anyone listening?

[Lurks Often]

17. Maybe, the CT Speaker of the House said he didn't want to see any new gun laws proposed

this past session. It remains to be seen if any are proposed during the special session which is supposed to address the budget only.

The Democrats lost 10 seats in the state House to Republicans last year, probably due to the gun control laws that got passed.

[pablo_marmol]

29. Same thing happened in CA

IIRC......and I'm fairly certain that I am........the number of "assault weapons" quadrupled in CA as a result of the Federal ban. Then, when asked to register their rifles, only a tiny fraction of Californians complied.

Are they that embarrassed by their failures?

Nothing would surprise me at this point. Remember, this is the state that waited ten years, and wasted about 44 million taxpayer dollars before abandoning ballistic fingerprinting.

http://www.ammoland.com/2012/01/44-million-not-a-single-crime-soved-cuomo-tells-legislature-scrap-bullet-tracking/#axzz3e2l9Lm5w

[mwrguy]

68. "Law abiding gun owners"

Apparently are a myth.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

69. In contrast --

No one ever suggested gun controllers were Constitution abiding.

[pablo_marmol]

71. The Mayors Against Illegal Guns are quite the stand up group!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11729219



Edited to add: Just goes to show what happens when citizens have to deal with laws that are dishonest and capricious. I'd argue that disobeying such laws is an act of patriotism.