I did not see anything about it. But I looked it up.

The Big Apple boasts one of the lowest suicide rates of the nation from 2010 and is only topped by the District of Columbia (6.. With a low prevalence of both obesity and smoking, availability of health care, and a high per capita of public health funding, New York has several strengths on its side.

Yes. Low suicide rate, low gun ownership rate hence lower gun deaths.

Can't infer that unconstitutional laws are the answer.

Never said that, said that they work.

I live in NYS and I have every type of gun I want. NY has never stopped me from getting what I want.

There was a time when seatbelts were not in cars, dashes were not padded and DWI was no big deal. Those things were looked at and safety SAVED lives.

I worked a fatal one day. Gulf War vet, great guy slid on ice into a poll, not wearing his seat belt, went through the windshield and sliced his neck wide open.

Every day a kid or a innocent person is killed by someone that did not use his gun properly.

The NRA should be promoting safety and safety policies, not acting like a wing of the GOP.

If the NRA-ILA was not supporting the positions of politicians that are pro 2nd, there would be no need for them to teach safety and safety policies

Firearms would be banned already.

Do you really think we can legislate our way into utopia?

No one is coming for anyones guns.

Bloomberg?  Soros?  Obama?

QuoteNo one is coming for anyones guns.

As long as it's a single shot, muzzle loading rifle right?




Do you think we can legislate away all tragedies?

Quote from: Wolfie on January 29 2015 06:46:22 PM MST
Never said that, said that they work.

I live in NYS and I have every type of gun I want. NY has never stopped me from getting what I want.

The NRA should be promoting safety and safety policies, not acting like a wing of the GOP.

You said the laws work and I am saying your analytical skills are weak.

Oh I thought you guys had mag limits and stuff. Well that's pretty cool that you can get 15 round mags for Glock 20's.

NRA does promote safety. And they help keep the attacks on our civil rights at bay.

I am not happy with mag limits, it keeps me looking away from the EEA guns.

But lets face reality, if you cannot take out your target with SEVEN rounds of 10mm, you should NOT be carrying a gun.

Well Wolfie, enjoy the seven rounds while you can.

Let me guess Earl, you need a 100 round barrel magazine to take out a kid eating Skittles.

Back to the original subject matter. It will create a retaliation mentality on various levels.

I concur and I disagree with these laws.

Whats going to happen is that these mental laws are going to stop people from getting help as they are going to be fearful that they are going to lose their guns.

This will make matters worse in my opinion.

Quote from: Wolfie on January 29 2015 08:17:22 PM MST
Let me guess Earl, you need a 100 round barrel magazine to take out a kid eating Skittles.

Let me guess Wuf, you have a problem with cognitive reasoning, don't you?

I don't need chit, nothing, nadda.....


But it's not called the Bill of Needs, is it?

I believe it's called The Bill of RIGHTS!

Are you a free man?

Answer my question that I've presented to you twice now, 

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT WE CAN LEGISLATE OUR WAY TO UTOPIA?

DO YOU BELIEVE WE CAN LEGISLATE AWAY TRAGEDY?   

Our own country wants to disarm us, yet it has built some of the most destructive weapons ever devised...still there is evil that lurks around the world.

I am not sure what a couple of you are arguing about since clear assertions haven't been made.  I am gonna make a couple.

Correlation is not causation.  Looking at the suicide rates by state I could make a pretty strong correlation between states with mountains and suicide rates.  Doesn't mean mountains cause suicide.

Here is a thought.  Suicide is the result of very complex societal pressures combined with mental disorders in individuals.  While access to lethal means is often an evaluated environmental factor, there is rarely the ability to attribute actual causation to these factors.

Wolfie, while I absolutely agree that modern safety features, including seat belts, save lives, I still don't understand how society gets a say in whether or not I wear a seatbelt.

And that gets to a core philosophical debate.  Governments govern by force or threat of force.  There needs to be a coherent philosophical statement that defines the governments source of authority to legitimately use that force, at least in a free society.

The common man responds to this challenge by citing democratic process.  But that is, put plainly, idiocy.  Pure democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what is for supper.  We can't vote to roast the Earl o Sammich for dinner, no matter how hungry his username makes me.

We exercise our republican democracy to enact laws with regard to specific areas that our government has been given authority from the people.  We the people.....

Since we the people are giving the authority to the government, it stands that we have given an authority that we ourselves inherently possess.  The Declaration says that my each of us has a right to life, liberty and property.  And, by extension, we have the right to protect our life liberty and property.  If I can't act to defend my life, liberty or property, I don't really possess them.  Also, if I can't dispose of my life, liberty or property as I see fit, with the limit that such disposition cannot directly and maliciously compromise another's rights to same, I don't really possess them.

Here then is the source of our governments power.  I can delegate to the government the authority to enact and enforce laws that protect my life, liberty and property.

And here then is the rub.  Seatbelt laws fall outside that delegation.  If you choose not to wear your seatbelt, you do not endanger my life, liberty or property.  Therefore I have no authority to force you to wear the seatbelt.  Speed limits...Yep.  Vehicle safety standards such as functioning brakes, steering, lights, etc...Yep.  Licensure requirements to ensure you have a minimum understanding of safe operation....Debatable, but I will give you a yep there too.  But padded dashboards?  Gonna call out a nope there.  Padded dashboards don't protect some else life, liberty or property.

Guns, similarly, fall outside that delegation.  Not only that, but guns are further called out as a fundamental right in the bill of rights.  In a right that is incorporated, meaning it applies to each of us individually, regardless of state boundries.  And a right that is subject to strict scrutiny.  Which means that in order to legitimately subrogate this right for a broader right, the government must show it has a legitimate government interest (maintaining peace and safety..Ok), that the law is as narrowly crafted as needed to meet the governments needs (these would be use laws, or restrictions on what I can do with a gun, not what guns I can have or what features the guns can have.), and that the law can be shown to actually achieve the governmental intent (which is where all the regulatory nonsense on what stuff we can have falls apart.)