• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NY State Senate passes sweeping gun regulations

You'd have a more reasonable conversation if you didn't make up terms like "evil guns."

And so would the state of NY. To assertain that guns with magazine capacities of 8 or more are "evil" yet the identical firearm with a magazine capacity of 7 or less is somehow going to be "preventing crime" is just not "reasonable". Also "unreasonable" is the idea that "registering" guns makes them "safer" or less likely to be used in a crime. All cars are "registered" yet they are used (abused?) to kill slightly more people, and to injure more that 30 times the number of people, than all guns, whether the "evil" kind or not.
 
anyone who wants to own the same defensive weapons that his security detail enjoys

most of the high speed action oriented pistol and rifle events

many target events that are based on 10 round strings

the workers of companies that will now most likely move out of NY

Which they have no Constitutional right to have in the first place. Thus, they are not being denied the right to keep and bear arms since they have a more than full menu of other options which will fulfill their exercise of the right.
 
Which they have no Constitutional right to have in the first place. Thus, they are not being denied the right to keep and bear arms since they have a more than full menu of other options which will fulfill their exercise of the right.

that claim has been rejected by most people. again-its like telling some one that if they can read one book it is ok to ban other books
 
How is it as STRONG GUN CONTROL LAW when it does nothing to control the millions of guns already in that state which can be used in criminal activity?

Your premise fails miserably right out of the gate.

How could there possibly be a gun control law that would control guns used in criminal activity? Your definition of "strong gun control" eliminates any possibility of such a law ever being enforced.

Which is really my point. That "strong gun control" law passed in NY does nothing to actually control guns. It just makes it more difficult for law abiding citizens to buy guns, just as any gun control law does. My prediction, therefore, is that it will be ineffective.
 
that claim has been rejected by most people. again-its like telling some one that if they can read one book it is ok to ban other books

I would welcome your verifiable evidence that this has been rejected by most people. I await its presentation by you asap.

And this is this. It is NOT something else. Guns are not books. The First Amendment is not the Second Amendment.
 
How could there possibly be a gun control law that would control guns used in criminal activity? Your definition of "strong gun control" eliminates any possibility of such a law ever being enforced.

I did not give you a definition of strong gun control. All I said was that the example you gave was not it.
 
I did not give you a definition of strong gun control. All I said was that the example you gave was not it.

You said:

How is it as STRONG GUN CONTROL LAW when it does nothing to control the millions of guns already in that state which can be used in criminal activity?

so, by inference, your definition of a strong gun control law would be one that controls the millions of guns already in that state which can be used in criminal activity.

If that inference is wrong, then what is your definition?
 
I am baffled by the logic of 7 round mags. How did that number come up and why does it make sense to the State of New York?

What NY may see as a result of their law is that more than a few gun owners will up-gun to single stack .45 caliber pistols.
 
You said:



so, by inference, your definition of a strong gun control law would be one that controls the millions of guns already in that state which can be used in criminal activity.

If that inference is wrong, then what is your definition?

I do not have one. I guess its like the Supreme Court justice and pornography.
 
I am baffled by the logic of 7 round mags. How did that number come up and why does it make sense to the State of New York?

What NY may see as a result of their law is that more than a few gun owners will up-gun to single stack .45 caliber pistols.
or go to other states to purchase their high capacity magazines.

Lucky #7. How, indeed, did the legislature come up with that number? I'm guessing that they pulled it out of thin air, or perhaps someplace smellier and darker.
 
How do you figure that? If my car has blown a rod and a mechanic simply changes the oil and it still does not run is it then fair for me to say that I never need to work on the cars engine?

Nope, but it would tell you that a oil change cannot fix a blown rod.
 
This looks like a perfect experiment to me.

If gun violence in NY shows a dramatic decrease after this bill is passed, then gun control works.
If it doesn't , then gun control doesn't work.

Anyone taking any bets?


The politicians absolutely won't care. If it goes up, they will claim it is the reason they need more gun restrictions. If it goes down, they will claim it is reason they need more gun restrictions.

In addition, if rape does up, they won't count it as gun violence. It is their view that being raped is just part of being a woman and even have been running editorials saying exactly that - featuring a woman bragging that while she was raped or assaulted 5 times before becoming a gun owner - and then not harmed the next 9 years - she is giving up her guns because being raped and assaulted is part of being a woman and she accepts that role.
 
Back
Top Bottom