Jul 22 Shooting Down The NYT

The New York Times is not known for their rational level-headed editorials, nor their firm grip on reality. So it probably shouldn't have surprised me to see one entitled "Shoot it down: Senate must kill amendment that would dangerously gut gun laws". Oooooh, sounds interesting, let's take a look shall we?

The pistols-for-everyone-everywhere crowd in Washington has engineered diabolical legislation that would blow gaping holes in New York's gun control laws. The measure must be stopped.

Ooooh, "pistols-for-everyone-everywhere crowd", way to start out on a straw man, the foundation of any solid argument. And really "diabolical"?? I'm heard some pretty emotional screeds in my life, but I'm not sure firearms are exactly the work of the devil. Unless of course you want to label people like the Founding Fathers and the Minutemen as akin to devil worshippers?

Either way, blowing holes in New York's gun control laws sounds pretty serious, please continue...

Republican Sen. John Thune wants Americans across the country to be able to carry concealed weapons, including Americans who live in, work in or visit this city and state. That's apparently the way of life, and death, in his beloved South Dakota.

And most of the United States really. Incidentally, Americans who live in, work in or visit your city and state are also allowed to drive, a privilege not protected by any Amendment in the US Constitution. And driving by the way is far more deadly than firearms. But apparently that's the way of life, and death, in your beloved New York Times Editorial office.

But what flies in Sioux Falls, population 150,000, or capital city Pierre, population 14,000, does not make it in the world's safest big city, population 8.4 million, where the police have saved thousands from gun deaths by vigorously enforcing weapons laws.

Wow, you're making this too easy. According to the FBI, the violent crime rate in New York City is 580.3* and the violent crime rate for Sioux Falls is 336.77*. Which sounds better?

And regarding your claim that police has save thousands of gun deaths by vigirously enforcing weapons laws. According to a study by the CDC, Task Force on Community Pervention Services, the U.S. government "found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes" and also concluded in one study that none of the attackers interviewed was "hindered by any law--federal, state or local--that has ever been established to prevent gun ownership. They just laughed at gun laws."

Plus, violent crime appears to be encouraged by gun control. Most gun control laws in the United States have been written since 1968, yet the murder rate rose during the 70s, 80s and early 90s. New York has one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation and 20% of the armed robberies. In fact, among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws. If anything gun control laws ENCOURAGE violent crime.

Thoroughly distorting the legislative process, Thune has attached a pro-gun amendment to a defense authorization bill. It would let anyone granted a concealed carry permit by any state carry a concealed handgun in any other state that issues such permits.

What you say is technically true, but you're taking it out of context. That permit holder could carry in any other state, but SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF THAT STATE. So let's take me for example. I'm a Minnesota carry permit holder and my state has a pretty decent carry law, with which we've had few problems. Under this proposed legislation if I traveled to say New York, and New York bans carrying a firearm into a restaurant (they don't but let's pretend). While in Minnesota I could legally carry in a restaurant, but in New York I still can't because this amendment still specifies that your permit is SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF THAT STATE.

Next time try actually reading the frigging legislation before bloviating (badly) about it.

Which New York does. But not all concealed carry permits are created equal. New York has some of the strictest rules in the country, and it doesn't have reciprocal agreements with other states that allow visitors to bring guns across the state line.

Well I think we already demonstrated that strict gun control laws don't equal safety, but let's be more specific to concealed carry. After passing their concealed carry law, Florida's homicide rate fell from 36% above the national average to 4% below, and remains below the national average. In Texas, murder rates fell 50% faster than the national average in the year after their
concealed carry law passed. Rape rates fell 93% faster in the first year after enactment, and 500% faster in the second. Assaults fell 250% faster in the second year. More to the point, crime is significantly higher in states without right-to-carry laws. States that disallow concealed carry have violent crime rates 11% higher than national averages according to FBI Uniform Crime Reports.

Other states have been been served well by concealed carry laws. New York on the other hand, not so much.

The Thune amendment would gut those safeguards. Anyone meeting the laxest standards of federal law - including people with misdemeanor convictions, long arrest records or alcohol abuse problems - would be able to walk the city streets packing heat. The NYPD could do nothing.

Remember, those permit holders are still subject to the laws of New York. If they are really doing something bad, NYPD can do something about it, and should. The Thune amendment would not change this.

More to your point, I noticed you don't have a problem with people with misdemeanor convictions, long arrest records or alcohol abuse problems driving in your state. Yet these are all equally applicable to operating a motor vehicle as they are firearms, except that operating a motor vehicle is a privilege, not a constitutionally protected right.

But let's examine this even further...misdemeanors, are crimes that aren't felonies, or even gross misdeamnors for a reason. They are relatively minor crimes like trespassing. Crimes which typically don't even result in a jail sentence and are usually dealt with via monetary penalties. Is a trespassing charge in their 20s reason to limit the rights of someone in their 40s?

Not only that, New Yorkers denied a local permit could go to any of the 21 states that give concealed carry permits to nonresidents.

True, but as we've already proven New York's laws don't make a hell of a lot of sense. In fact they fly in the face of statistical evidence and common sense. Fact is criminals don't follow laws by definition. So your gun control laws are only disarming law-abiding citizens (i.e. victims).

They'd then be free to bring mayhem back home.

Ooooh the Wild Wild West argument, I love this one!!! This was the primary argument used in Minnesota before it became a "Shall Issue" state. And well that was years ago...since then blood has refused to run in the streets. In fact our local light rail train has killed more people than our carry law has.

But I'm game, let's address this claim. Statistics show that in these states the crime rate fell (or did not rise) after the right-to-carry law became active (as of July, 2006) In fact, according to a study, the general public is 5.7 times more likely to be arrested for violent offenses than CCW permit holders and 13.5 times more likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses than the than CCW permit holders.

The NYPD and the 400-member, bipartisan group Mayors Against Illegal Guns, among others, are opposed to the Thune amendment. Mayor Bloomberg is working to stop it. But even with a 60-vote majority, Senate Democrats are not sure that they have enough votes to defeat the measure, given the ranks of Dems from traditionally Republican, gun-loving states.

I see your bipartisan group and raise you three bipartisan groups, the NRA, Law Enforcement Alliance of America and the Second Amendment Police Department, which support shall-issue concealed carry laws. Did you ever think that perhaps the reason that so many Senators, including Democrats, are supporting this is because it's what the people want?? Studies have repeatedly confirmed this.

New York's best hope is for Sen. Chuck Schumer and others to pressure Thune to withdraw the amendment. Failing that, Schumer says he will filibuster.

Schumer can do whatever he wants. He's certainly entitled to his opinion, no matter how stupid and incorrect it may be.

Whatever it takes. The Thune amendment must be shot down, by any means necessary.

Any means necessary?? Does that including firearms?? Cause I heard somewhere (probably a NYT editorial) that guns are bad.

* per 100,000

[crossposted at EckerNet.Com, comments welcome]