• Assault Weapons Ban Introduced in Delaware; NJ's tough gun laws toughened more
    116 replies, posted
http://www.governing.com/topics/public-justice-safety/Assault-Weapons-Ban-Introduced-in-Delaware.html http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/03/lawmakers_just_voted_make_nj_gun_laws_even_tougher.html
Ah yes, the legendary AWB of the 1990s that saved us all from the tyranny of the black guns. Here to live on at the state level.
Just some fun tidbits in the New Jersey stuff passed: reducing the number of bullets allowed in a magazine from 15 to 10 strictly defining that residents must show a "justifiable need" to obtain a permit to carry a handgun making it easier to seize weapons from people deemed to pose a threat to themselves or others. Fun tidbits from the Delaware law: AR-15s and AKs banned Those who already owned banned guns heavily restricted in their transportation seeks to block the sale, transfer or import of about 60 specific makes and models of semi-automatic rifles and handguns, along with so-called "copycat weapons" defined by features such as folding stocks, flash suppressors and grenade launchers. ~Damn those grenade launchers that are used to kill people every day in the US~
Beyond retarded.
civilian grenade launchers are glorified flare guns
[url=http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Cobray_37mm_Launcher]Many civilian launches are flare guns.[/url]
Don't think I've ever in my entire life seen an under barrel grenade launcher for civilian sale. Solving the real issues.
Assault weapons bans are soooooo not the way to go. I'm sure we'll keep getting them forever since they're ineffective feel-good bills fine-tuned to keep politicians in office till their term limit.
Thank god for banning those Grenade Launchers.
The best part is we already have these laws in NJ. such as the “justifiable need”, which led to a woman being stabbed to death by her ex because her carry permit was never even processed in the one month time that is required.
Awesome! A step in the right direction! Hoping other states will follow suite.
This is the exact opposite of a atep forward. It’s a step backwards, and not actually looking to fix any of the proems that cause gun violence.
They don't care. They just want to see guns gone. You can't reason with people like that.
Last time I checked, reducing the amount of murder-machines available, the less murder there is. You can harp on and on about how criminals will somehow "always get guns anyway" but that logic holds zero water, because then what's the point of any laws? Murderers are gonna murder, rapists are gonna rape, thieves are gonna thieve. Right? Or maybe it's that the deaths caused by these types of guns are "statistically insignificant", which is in my opinion even more horrible to say because it implies the people who do get killed by assault weapons don't matter enough to be granted every kind of preventative action to avoid that it happens again. Or are you gonna turn this into a semantics-issue, where we argue for 12 pages about "what defines an assault rifle"? Less guns is good. There's an entire world outside the borders of The United States of America, and most of it functions just fine without AR-15's and the like.
Last time I checked, reducing the amount of murder-machines available, the less murder there is. Which this law isn't doing, since restrictions like this are easy to circumvent and historically have not had any impact on crime. Which you would know, if you did any research whatsoever into when comparable laws were implemented on a federal level. Changing the magazine size from 15 to 10? Changing 'you need a justification' to 'no, you really need a justification, super srs guys'? Grenade launchers? This is theater, not 'reducing the amount of murder-machines available'. They could make a law banning all yellow guns manufactured on a Tuesday and you'd sit there calling it a reasonable and justified law because 'yay less guns', irrespective of how useless it actually is in practice.
I agree with your intentions here, but these laws are nothing but a series of things that negligibly affect crime, and only let the make the people behind the laws pat themselves on the back for not doing anything. You want to know how hard it is to circumvent the "justifiable need" clause? Buy a gun off Craigslist and "oops, I forgot to tell anyone about it." Private sales need to be regulated WAY better, holding sellers culpable, f they do not declare it to the authority, and EXTRA culpable if the weapon is then found on a crime scene (unless reported stolen, obviously). Handguns continue to be ignored as well, mean while they make up the vast majority of violent crime, involving a gun. So yes, I agree with you in principle, but you, and these lawmakers, and so many others ignore things that could really make a difference, for fluff that looks like they are doing something, that ultimately does nothing.
More like Republicans will use this as ammo against the Dems when it turns out it had no effect on gun crime. Just like last time an AWB was passed.
New Jersey's changes seem pretty reasonable Delaware's is bit of a hit and miss
In New Jersey, there is no such thing as a "justified cause" for a permit. It's a de facto ban.
It's almost like we're annoyed telling people to look at actual facts about rifle deaths in the US, because they're made out to be murdering everyone and their grandmothers, when the reality is just look at all the deaths, in every state, from pistols alone. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-12 So when we suggest tougher mental health screening, better coordination between Law enforcement and the Federal Government through the NICS, longer waiting periods for rifles, and these get shot down by people like you because you hear an emotionally charged statement about "assault rifles" and how everyone outside of the US thinks were a god forsaken war zone, you're doing nothing but making us stick our heels in the ground and not budge, because you're not even willing to look at logic and function off of it, you're entire argument is structured on feelings.
Yeah, it's almost like we need to be enforcing the laws and processes already in place and not adding a shitty "black guns with pistol grips are evil" law that has no effect. Picture this: In 2016, 10,497 people were killed in drunk driving accidents. What should we do? Driving under the influence is already illegal. A law like an AWB for cars would make it illegal to have, say, paddle shifters on your car, or aftermarket rims that are larger than a certain diameter, or pearlescent paints. Making these things illegal would have zero effect on the drunk driving rate. No, it doesn't. What it implies is that we have an ineffectual Congress with a buffoon for president, so our ability as a nation to pass effective legislation is practically nothing. I don't think anyone who pulls the stats card, myself included, want these people to keep getting shot. We just want everyone to take a step back, look at the big picture, and then and only then can you introduce effective legislation. Assault weapons bans are provably ineffective, and if you want to see an actual decline in gun violence, you need to change your attitude completely.
This is perhaps the best analogy I've ever read on AWBs.
oh...well thats bad then :/
Anything that says "may issue" or "requires cause" is code word for "there is no reason you can give that will ever be good enough for us" from the government.
Hence why most gun owners find any solution to gun violence that requires them to prove a "need requirement" to satisfy the state a non-starter.
Did she tell the authorities she felt at risk or acquire a restraining order?
Given that her ex had planned to murder her, I don't think a restraining order would have helped any.
Well if she knew in advance that he was going to try to harm her, or she felt that he was going to, I personally think it would've been a good idea to tell the authorities "hey I think this guy might attack me." They can investigate it and an investigation could've stopped, or delayed, him from committing the crime. Or maybe it wouldn't have. I don't think it would've hurt though.
This is my thoughts:
I think it would be preferable to show stats if you want to prove that the ban had a negative effect, rather than anecdotal events that may be linked to the policy.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.