Assemblyman’s Vehicle Is Hit by Gunfire in Brooklyn, but He Is Unharmed

[alp227]

A sport utility vehicle driven by Assemblyman William F. Boyland Jr. was hit by gunfire in Brooklyn on Wednesday evening as he rode with his 7-year-old son, a police spokeswoman said.

Neither Mr. Boyland nor his son was injured, said the spokeswoman, Deputy Inspector Kim Royster of the New York Police Department.

Inspector Royster said Wednesday night that investigators did not believe that Mr. Boyland, a four-term assemblyman who represents the 55th Assembly District in Brooklyn, was the intended target of the shooting, which occurred in his district. She said it appeared to be “a random shooting.”

“It doesn’t seem they were aiming at the vehicle,” Inspector Royster said.

full: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/11/nyregion/gunshots-hit-vehicle-of-assemblyman-william-boyland-jr.html

It's hard not to support gun control when it comes to random shooting/drive-by situations like this one.

[mvccd1000]

1. "It's hard not to support gun control when it comes to random shootings..."

And that would be because NYC's draconian gun control worked so well to prevent this shooting?

I know that comes off as a little snarky... sorry. My thought is that if gun control isn't working to prevent events such as this, what OTHER actions can be taken that would work to prevent them?

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess than anyone who lacks such basic respect for their fellow residents, as well as for the law, has probably already committed other crimes. We already have laws against 1) criminals possessing firearms, 2) discharging firearms within the city limits, and (in NYC), 3) possessing a firearm in general, unless you're famous and/or rich, in which case you are more worthy of self-defense than a commoner.

Clearly, gun control, or at least gun control alone, is not preventing this from happening. What else can be done, either within the criminal justice system or the social services system to prevent such things, since the 2-3 laws that already made this act illegal did nothing to prevent it?

[Euromutt]

3. Minor correction there...

NYC has separate licenses for possessing a firearm in your residence or privately owned place of business on the one hand, and for carrying a firearm in public on the other. The latter is very, very hard to get unless you're Chuck Schumer, Howard Stern, Don Imus or Robert de Niro. The former is a bit less difficult to acquire, but it's a royal pain even legally transporting your legally possessed firearm to a place where you can legally shoot it.

[iverglas]

19. "And that would be because NYC's draconian gun control worked so well to prevent this shooting?"

No, it's because somebody obviously left a drawbridge down across the moat that surrounds NYC.

Clearly, gun control, or at least gun control alone, is not preventing this from happening. What else can be done, either within the criminal justice system or the social services system to prevent such things, since the 2-3 laws that already made this act illegal did nothing to prevent it?

Gee.

How about some laws / policies / actions that actually make it a tiny bit difficult for the people you describe to actually GET GUNS?

I know, this is the first time you've heard such a notion. So I'm sure you'll be jumping right on board now.


Licensing of all owners, to deter intentional/unintentional transfers to ineligible persons

Registration of all transfers, to deter "law-abiding gun owners" from engaging in intentional/unintentional transfers to ineligible persons

Safe/secure storage regulations, to deter unintentional transfers to ineligible persons


In ALL jurisdictions within the country, and of course with pressure on other countries to do the same.

Simples, eh?


You asked the question, and that's the answer. Whether you happen to like it or not.

[X_Digger]

25. Regulations like in the UK or Norway? (Cumbria, Utoya) n/t

[iverglas]

26. lots of drive-by shootings there, are there?

Probably more in Canada.

But then we have a long land & water border with Gun World.

[gejohnston]

29. you asked me once when

I listed the number of drive bys in UK using sub machine guns, I mentioned "they can't blame that on us"

you just answered your own question.

[iverglas]

36. you didn't actually mention the "number"

of drive-by machine-gun shootings in the UK. I believe I found one verified report of such a thing.

My question was not about machine guns, it was about how many drive-by shootings occur in the UK. If you can give us a number, we can work out that ratio thing to see how it compares to the US. Otherwise, I'm seeing hot air.

[gejohnston]

40. fewer than ours or yours but

more than there should be, we do agree on that? Good question, do the police keep such statistics? Have to work on that. I don't know if anyone has any specific data like that. If anyone in the UK would, it would be the Home Office. UK does not seem to have a federal police force like FBI or RCMP (MI5 is internal security. Some mistakenly think that Scotland Yard is, but is simply the headquarters of the London Metro Police.)

From what I understand, the black market price for an SMG is not that much more than a pistol in Europe.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-100130/Just-200-gun-London.html

[X_Digger]

32. It's always someone else's fault, isn't it?

Canada would be a utopian ideal if it weren't for those damned guns just jumping across the border and landing, what was it-- like lawn darts, right?

What about the 80% of guns used in crime in CA-- that come from CA? Arguably the strictest regulation in the US (definitely so at a state level)..

Oh wait, that's someone else's fault too. The legislators who didn't add more laws.

I'm sure there'll always be 'just one more' law to add.

[iverglas]

37. lots of drive-by shootings in Norway and the UK are there?

I see diversionary grooming, I don't see an answer.


What about the 80% of guns used in crime in CA-- that come from CA?

I dunno. What about them? How were they acquired by the people who used them in crimes? If you're not going to tell me that, you're just babbling.


Canada would be a utopian ideal if it weren't for those damned guns just jumping across the border and landing, what was it-- like lawn darts, right?

Nope, no lawn darts there. They didn't drop from the sky at all. They were trafficked into the country. Firearms purchased in the US expressly for trafficking, that it was possible to purchase because your laws allow traffickers to buy firearms.

Some are trafficked within the US, some are trafficked out of the US. In both cases, they go from wherever traffickers are able to buy them to places where there is demand for them among people for whom it is otherwise difficult to acquire them.

As you and I and the rest of the world know.

[Euromutt]

2. How do you come to that conclusion?

This incident occurred in New York City, which requires registration of long guns and prohibits so-called "assault weapons," requires a comparatively hard to get license to possess a handgun and a damn near impossible to get license to carry one in public. Licenses from the rest of the state aren't valid within in the city limits, let alone licenses from out of state. I'm sure there's some ordinance prohibiting discharging a firearm within the city limits as well.

Al of this gun control already in place, and it still didn't prevent Assemblyman Boyland's car from being struck by stray rounds. If anything, this incident illustrates the futility of attempting to stem criminal use of firearms by imposing restrictions on non-criminals.

[alp227]

4. Safety is a basic human right. The stray rounds could've hit Boyland or his son.

Based on the 2nd amendment, I support gun ownership as a means of self-defense. The problem is though that the more gun ownership is allowed the higher probability of surprise shootings like this case. And I think it's a bit hard to fire back at a drive-by shooter.

[one-eyed fat man]

5. Going along with your thinking

Explain to me how we can stop drunk driving by taking the keys away from sober people?

Since the problem here seems to be a criminal doing bad things with a gun he is already not allowed to have, how would making it any harder than it already is for a non-criminal to have a gun in New York affect some random shooting gang banger one dam bit?

[iverglas]

20. "Explain to me how we can stop drunk driving by taking the keys away from sober people?"

Nah, you explain why you decided to pull this question out of your bum and smear it around here.

Was somebody proposing to take away your guns?


Since the problem here seems to be a criminal doing bad things with a gun he is already not allowed to have, how would making it any harder than it already is for a non-criminal to have a gun in New York affect some random shooting gang banger one dam bit?

Holy shit, I wonder!!!

I wonder whether making it harder for someone who plans to transfer the fucking thing ILLEGALLY to get hold of it in the first place, in New York or ANYWHERE ELSE (there being no actual moat around New York, for the love of fuck), might just help a little?

And whether maybe imposing consequences on "sober people" who engage in such transfers might help?

And whether maybe, in order to impose those consequences, some oversight of said "sober people" might be salutary? Like requiring a licence to acquire a firearm, and requiring registration of any transfer of the firearm.

"I traded it to a white guy with a tatoo for his dog" just might not work as well in those circumstances, for the casual gun-runner. And the less casual just might not be able to load up on stock and run it across borders quite so easily either.

[one-eyed fat man]

49. You are a good example

You have alluded several time to your past and, presumably,continued, use of recreational drugs the Canadian government has proscribed for decades. The laws have appeared to make little difference to you. You may rationalize them as unjust, intrusive, inconvenient, doesn't really matter. You choose to disregard them and underwrite a criminal enterprise that fulfills your demand for an illegal commodity. Just like every black market has always done.

Bet you a dollar to a donut unless you are obtaining your weed from some kind of commune co-op of aging hippies in Manitoba if you ask your drug dealer if he can get you a gun.

[iverglas]

50. your are a presumptuous, impertinent horse's

assumer.

The laws have appeared to make little difference to you. You may rationalize them as unjust, intrusive, inconvenient, doesn't really matter. You choose to disregard them and underwrite a criminal enterprise that fulfills your demand for an illegal commodity.

That is a 100% false statement.

Retract it now.

Hahahaha.

Like a ....... like you would ever do anything that demonstrated even that minimal integrity.

[one-eyed fat man]

53. LSD is not illegal?

"I would never have seen Newfoundland, or spent a magical day on acid in the Laurentian mountains..."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=73528&mesg_id=73590

"He peered at me, and said "I know you ... I saw you ...", and I, fresh from some national media attention back home, said smugly but graciously "... on the CBC." "No," he said; "standing in that alley back there smoking a joint."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=55281&mesg_id=55601

"Well, I'm just rather fond of toilet paper cardboard rolls, with a hole cut out and some old tinfoil from last summer's fast food (I don't *buy* that non-degradable foil stuff, I'm a child of the 60s who tries to tread lightly; do you people actually call it aluminum foil?) -- taped on so it makes a nice deep little bowl, with some holes punched in it using whatever old political campaign button is hanging on the lampshade ... hand over the end, all set.

I mean, if memory serves and all that."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=698416&mesg_id=698775

Perhaps memory doesn't serve after all?

[iverglas]

55. AND NOW LET'S LOOK AT YOUR FALSE STATEMENT AGAIN

You may rationalize {laws} as unjust, intrusive, inconvenient, doesn't really matter. You choose to disregard them and underwrite a criminal enterprise that fulfills your demand for an illegal commodity. Just like every black market has always done.

You alleged that I do something, present tense.

Your allegation is FALSE. 100% FALSE.

The material you quoted provides you with no basis for your allegation or for refusing to retract it.

The first item you quoted referred to an event that occurred in 1971. If you have evidence that organized crime was a source/supplier of acid on small-town university campuses in Ontario in 1971, or that a teenager (as I was at the time) would have known about it, you let me know.

The second referred to an event that occurred in 1984 IN CHICAGO. I have no idea where my host, a librarian, got his weed.

And then the third one, that's the fun one. So clever at finding (or being fed) stuff, but you couldn't find the numerous ones like this:

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=190&topic_id=7257&mesg_id=7264

iverglas
Fri Jul-29-05 04:38 PM
Response to Original message
4. ctv has the story

... Us, we just wandered down to a shop on the main street of our burg and got our seeds from a much more modest and retiring chap with rather less flashy premises.

Mostly because we could, I have to say. ;)

The Hells Angels do not sell cannabis seeds in head shops on the main shopping streets of Canadian cities, or supply seeds to said shops.

I pretty much gave up smoking pot, not to mention dropping acid, in the early 70s. I'm not a happy-go-lucky stoner, not having a brain that shuts down easily, and have also never been much of a drinker and seldom even have a glass of wine these days; I'm better when I'm sober and straight.

Over the next couple of decades I smoked OP's from time to time. In the mid-90s, a friend gave me some he'd bought from a friend, and I bought from the same friend once: a hippie who raised free-range chickens and eggs and a little bit of pretty piss poor pot. Then we grew that small crop of a dozen or so kind of stunted specimens in plantpots on our deck, which was pretty good, actually. That was ... well, the post is 6 years old ... and there's still some dregs of it kicking around somewhere. Given my difficult to manage glaucoma and now optic nerve damage, I've been tempted to go for the medicinal purposes, but the negative effects outweigh the positive by a lot. Neither pathological munchies nor elimination of motivation are anything I need.

If you work at it, you may find the places where I have said that one reason why I stopped smoking pot many years ago was precisely because I chose not to be a participant in the organized crime activities in question.

Oh look, that didn't take long. ("Basi's Boys" were a pack of rats who were deep into provincial and federal Liberal Party doings in British Columbia, including fundraising and corrupting government processes, and Basi was also deep into various kinds of drug operations.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=190x3920

iverglas
Thu Mar-03-05 06:00 PM
Response to Original message
6. damn

... Pot's pleasant enough, but for many years I've declined to provide the demand that draws people to the supply side of the equation who are happy to kill other people to protect the profits my demand creates. Don't buy things made by 12-year-olds for slave wages, don't buy things grown by organized crime either. Not fair on me that I can't get what I want, but that's life.

... Now when are we going to be told the real dirt on that angle of what Basi and his boys were up to in BC? I don't like to think I'm being governed by people who got their money that way either.

You have made a vicious false accusation and it is beyond high time that you retracted it.

My memory, and the record, serve me just fine. Much better than your ethics appear to serve you.

[one-eyed fat man]

56. So my error is matter of time

All your use of drugs was either ancient history, socially accepting OP's (which I take to mean "other peoples") or of the commune hippy or home grown grown variety.

You do surprise me, though. You are beyond all doubt the first doper, casual, reformed or otherwise, I have ever heard, who even acknowledged the habit rendered them "... a participant in the organized crime activities in question."

"... Pot's pleasant enough, but for many years I've declined to provide the demand that draws people to the supply side of the equation who are happy to kill other people to protect the profits my demand creates."

In that regard, you are the exception, and I will withdraw the allegation that you presently underwrite a criminal enterprise.

[Euromutt]

6. Again, this incident occurred in a place with some of the most stringent gun control...

...in the country. For this incident to have occurred, the person who fired the stray rounds almost certainly had to break several laws concerning possession and discharging of firearms, none of which prevented him from doing it. What additional law would prevent this kind of thing from occurring, as opposed to being yet another law that this individual would have ignored?

[iverglas]

21. don't you pride yourself on looking clever?

Not doing too well here, are you?

For this incident to have occurred, the person who fired the stray rounds almost certainly had to break several laws concerning possession and discharging of firearms, none of which prevented him from doing it.

Hmm.

First, they had to get the gun ...

And people in NYC never ever have guns that were born somewhere else.


I guess sometimes looking foolish is a reasonable sacrifice if somebody falls for the bullshit.



typo fixed

[spin]

9. The only way to have more gun control than New York City ...

is to ban all guns and confiscate them.

That will never happen as the rich and privileged could no longer own firearms. Mayor Bloomberg can't allow his friends to have to live only with the protection of their security details inside their guarded enclaves.

It would be hardly worth it to be wealthy without all the perks. The rich would be just like everybody else, except they would have plenty of money. You know you are someone when you have a license to own a gun in New York City and you really know that you have finally arrived when you get a concealed carry permit. It's good to be rich in the USA and especially in the Big Apple.

And who knows, one day all the little people may get really upset over the economy and decide to riot. But at least in New York City, those little people will not have legal guns. Of course, if Mayor Bloomberg had his way, no little people in the United States would be allowed to own firearms.

[iverglas]

22. is to have better gun control outside of New York City

[spin]

34. If you are talking about opening the NICS background check for all private sales ...

I definitely would agree as long as there is no federal registration of serial numbers of the firearms involved beyond what is currently required for purchases involving a licensed firearms dealer.

National Instant Criminal Background Check System

***snip***

Privacy and Security of NICS Information

The privacy and security of the information in the NICS is of great importance. In October 1998, the Attorney General published regulations on the privacy and security of NICS information, including the proper and official use of this information. These regulations are available on the NICS website. Data stored in the NICS is documented federal data and access to that information is restricted to agencies authorized by the FBI. Extensive measures are taken to ensure the security and integrity of the system information and agency use. The NICS is not to be used to establish a federal firearm registry; information about an inquiry resulting in an allowed transfer is destroyed in accordance with NICS regulations. Current destruction of NICS records became effective when a final rule was published by the Department of Justice in The Federal Register, outlining the following changes. Per Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 25.9(b)(1), (2), and (3), the NICS Section must destroy all identifying information on allowed transactions prior to the start of the next NICS operational day. If a potential purchaser is delayed or denied a firearm and successfully appeals the decision, the NICS Section cannot retain a record of the overturned appeal. If the record is not able to be updated, the purchaser continues to be denied or delayed, and if that individual appeals the decision, the documentation must be resubmitted on every subsequent purchase. For this reason, the Voluntary Appeal File (VAF) has been established. This process permits applicants to request that the NICS maintain information about themselves in the VAF to prevent future denials or extended delays of a firearm transfer. (See VAF Section below.)
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/general-information/fact-sheet

If you are talking about stiffer penalties for those caught involved in the straw purchase or smuggling of firearms, I'm all for it.

If you believe that the ATF should have better management and funding, I would support your view.

If you are talking about registration of all firearms, schemes like requiring new firearms to microstamp the cartridge case of an ejected round or banning a class of firearms based on appearance or because they can easily be carried (such as common handguns) -- then I disagree. Of course, such ideas have little chance of getting the votes to pass in Congress.

I definitely would not want to see the current gun laws of New York City required for the rest of the country. I have absolutely no problem with the rich, the politically connected and the famous owning firearms as long as the average honest citizen has the same right. I consider the firearm laws in Florida to be very reasonable.

[iverglas]

38. the very least a rational decent person should be demanding

is that no firearms transfers, anywhere, by anyone, to anyone, be legally permitted w/o a NICS check.

However, I understand that the problem is that while a licensed dealer must retain records of the purchase showing the purchaser's details, in at least some situations, this can't reasonably be applied to private sales, since no one in their right mind would agree to their personal data being retained by another individual not subject to any oversight. This could be overcome by requiring all firearms transfers to be done via a licensed dealer if the dealer were required to retain the same information as for a sale by the dealer, I suppose.

If all that is required is a NICS check, what possible enforcement mechanism is there? Person A buys a firearm from a dealer and the record is generated and retained. Person A sells the firearm to Person B. Person B claims to have queried NICS one way or another, but gosh, what did they do with that record of the buyer's info ...

[gejohnston]

42. I don't see how we could do that on a federal level

given it is intrastate sale among private individuals, most likely violating the Commerce Claus

[iverglas]

44. that's your problem ;)

Do it at the every-state level then.

[gejohnston]

46. it would have to

go through each state assembly.

[hack89]

11. If he had been hit by a drunk driver, would you be arguing for fewer cars on the road? nt

[PavePusher]

12. Do you really think the shooter was licenced/registered?

Or that people who jump through those hoops will do things like this? Or that it will result in increases in criminal actions?

Seriously?

Cite your evidence, please...

[alp227]

15. There can be abuse of the licensing system. Or the shooter was unlicensed.

I just looked up NYC's gun licensing process. The carrying licenses are restricted for business owners (I guess if the applicant works at a liquor store, restaurant, 7-Eleven, anywhere that could get robbed). It costs over $400 to apply and get fingerprinted.

But my opinion - feel free to attack it - is that some deranged people out there who otherwise do not have a criminal record might abuse their legal gun rights.

[gejohnston]

27. the odd are about zero

since there is no way of knowing how this stray bullet came from or the shooter is, your point is what? The odds of it being a legal gun owner is zero, unless Don Imus is back on his booze and coke. Of course if it were a working person, who never abused any drug getting a gun permit in NYC is zero.

[slackmaster]

14. The "guns behave like gas molecules" fallacy

This incident, in all likelihood, has nothing to do with someone being allowed to own a gun. There is a high probability that the shooter is a convicted felon already, or at the very least doesn't have a permit to own or carry the weapon.

The problem isn't the number of guns in circulation; it's who has them.

[iverglas]

23. "The problem isn't the number of guns in circulation; it's who has them."

Actually, it's who they got them from.

[Katya Mullethov]

51. The tee shirts are selling briskly

[PavePusher]

54. Yes, it comes with extra Awesome-sauce... n/t

[Remmah2]

7. Mr. Boyland is not such an up and up personality.

"Mr. Boyland was indicted in March in a bribery and corruption scandal ".

[spin]

8. Not that unusual for a politician ...

But the police don't feel that his vehicle was targeted. His indictment is an interesting side story.

[DonP]

18. In Chicago that's considered career enhancement

If an alderman doesn't have an investigation or an indictment somewhere in their background they aren't doing the job right.

[iverglas]

24. what on earth is your point?

The drive-by shooting was quite certainly random. There was a child in the car.

But if Boyland had been killed, I guess we could have lumped him in with those "deaths of people we don't care about".

If his kid had been killed, well, the kid would have made the supreme sacrifice for those so-called rights that need to be defended to the death ... other people's ...

[gejohnston]

28. If it was any other means that gun

he would be lumped with those deaths Brady and company doesn't care about.

[iverglas]

39. uh oh ... you mean ...

it's a single-issue organization?

:rofl:

Hey, at least it cares about some deaths.

Unlike that other famous single-issue organization ...

[gejohnston]

47. there is a difference between caring

and disagreeing about what to do about it.

[Blown330]

52. Too rich...

Hey, at least it cares about some deaths.


Believing that the Brady group actually cares about the safety of people....:rofl: They tapdance on the graves of innocents like every other extreme gun-control advocate.

[hack89]

10. Is it harder to support criminal control? Why not solve the real problem? nt

[alp227]

16. You're right, the problem is not just guns but also societal violence

The justice system should be more proactive in preventing violence rather than leaving the problem unsolved. For example, how do we deal with the issue of recidivism with paroled/released people convicted even for drug possession and who's out in the society and unable to find work? I could go on and on about how children who grow up in poor neighborhoods turn to gangs, drugs, and crime in general in their lives and shuttle in and out of the justice system without any rehabilitation at all.

[gejohnston]

41. are we talking about violence in general or specifically murder?

While guns are used in most murders in the US, only 25 percent of violent crimes. Only one third of Canadian murders. The UN ranks Scotland as having the highest violent crime.

Russia has almost no gun crime or gun deaths, but their murder rate is almost four times higher than ours. To answer your question, end the war on drugs, the MIC and use the money saved to provide free college or trade school, medical care like Europe. Equalize public school funding. Also, raise tariffs to bring jobs back including factories back to the city centers.

[slackmaster]

13. LOL!

It's hard not to support gun control when it comes to random shooting/drive-by situations like this one.

New York City has some of the strictest gun control in the USA, and it failed.

Maybe criminal control would be more effective.

[alp227]

17. well my point was how to reconcile gun rights and preventing random attacks like this story

So I agree with you and another poster (the previous one) about criminal control. Already, people convicted of felonies or even domestic violence are barred from owning guns. Given the 2nd amendment restricts government from doing much about controlling ownership, how can the justice system reduce such a person's urge to use a firearm and heck reducing regression to crime? Perhaps expanding rehabilitative, job-training programs for certain prisoners?

Anyway, I thank you and the others on this board who have corrected my flawed POV, I support the 2nd amendment and the constitution in general and am trying to be more informed about what effective, safe, and constitutional public policy would be.

[SteveM]

30. On "preventing random attacks..."

Actually, it is probably an impossibility. Someone bent on mayhem is not going to let societal policies and laws stop him/her.

Rehabilitation and job-training may help, but a veteran thug, esp. one who has been in and out and in and out of the prison system, even for violent felonies, is used to the "rhythm," and considers his/her lifestyle a normal way to live. We aren't going to legislate our ways out of this. I would point out that our violent crime rate has fallen steadily since the mid-1990s, probably for a number of reasons. During this time, the number of firearms in civilian hands has gone up by well over 100,000,000. This doesn't prove that "more guns = less crime," but it doesn't support the gun-control meme "more guns = more crime."

[gejohnston]

31. given that

there are more gun and gang deaths in UK than before, and they even use machine guns more than we do (which is true throughout Europe}. The problem is not gun owners, the problem is bong owners funding the gang wars, and the war on drugs making it profitable. My solution? legalize, blanket pardon for all non violent users, that will make more than enough room for real sociopaths and predators. Rehabilitate who we can, warehouse the few we can't.

[ileus]

33. I thought everyone would be happy the SUV was attacked.

[gejohnston]

35. Earth First?

Hayduke takes on New York, too bad Ed Abbey passed away before we could write it.

[DanTex]

43. Indeed

Regarding NYC, it's important to note that the homicide rate is around 6/100k, only slightly above the national average, which is not bad for a city this size, given that there is more crime in densely populated areas. That won't stop the NRA crowd from yelling "See! Gun control didn't stop ________!" But a broader view of the evidence clearly shows that, the more difficult you make it for criminals to get guns, the less gun violence and homicide you get.

A lot of the responses to this OP repeat the standard talking point that gun laws don't affect criminals, only law abiding citizens. Of course, the fact that other wealthy countries have a small fraction of the gun crimes that we have in the US shows this is clearly false. In the US, one problem you get is the lack of a uniform bottom line. While gun control at a state or municipal level does reduce gun violence, the fact that it is very easy to carry guns across state lines limits the effectiveness of gun laws in cities like NYC (in fact, it is very likely that the gun used in this shooting did not originate in NYC or even NY state). This is part of the reason that mayors of large cities are pushing for things like a nationwide policy closing the gun show loophole. Really, it is absurd that a convicted felon can go to a gun show in many states and buy guns with no background check at all.

In fact, closing the gun show loophole is an example of a law that would only affect criminals -- people who can pass a background check would still be able to get guns just as easily. Another idea that would make it significantly harder for criminals to divert and traffic guns would be a registration system. Again, law abiding citizens would hardly be affected by the requirement that their guns be registered. On the other hand, straw purchasers, corrupt gun dealers, and anyone involved in diverting guns from FFLs to the criminal market would find the registration to be quite problematic.

So, yes, it is difficult not to support gun control in the face of the massive gun violence problem in the US, particularly such common-sense policies that would make life much more difficult for criminals but hardly affect law-abiding gun owners. But then, one glance at the list of NRA's keynote speakers shows that the gun lobby is not the place to go for common sense..

[oneshooter]

45. Question..........

"Another idea that would make it significantly harder for criminals to divert and traffic guns would be a registration system. Again, law abiding citizens would hardly be affected by the requirement that their guns be registered."

What happens 4 or 6 or 20 years later if certain firearms are made illegal to own? Look at California, New York City, New Orleans.

That is why a registration scheme won't fly. Every year or so there is a new administration. What is to prevent them from using the lists to confiscate firearms? Any way to ironclad guaranty they will not?


Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[gejohnston]

48. so many logical fallacies, so little time.

Gun laws have nothing to do with Europe's crime or lack of. It is far more complex than that.
Or, criminals could get them in a black market similar to Europe's. Or, we could eliminate all guns from civil society, and have almost no gun deaths, but still have higher murder rate than Mexico like Russia.

The rest of it was normal talking points complete with loaded buzz words and things that really don't exist.
:boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: