Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Extras | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS

Weapons ban won’t slow crime rate

January 29, 2013

Editor, OBSERVER: I would like to respond regarding the recent commentary of Paul Christopher, who believes that all semi-automatic and pistols in America should be immediately confiscated and......

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Jan-29-13 5:48 AM

Great letter!

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-29-13 6:51 AM

Well, why do we limit certain chemicals in food just because a few people get cancer from them? With all my traing i9n drivingf cars, and years of practice, whu can't I drive as fast as I want to, just because some people get killed by those exceeding the speed limits? You are right though, no pprevious gun laws restricting ownership have helped at all because of A)too many loopholes, and B)there are already too many out there. Ah yes, the veteran issue, always a good ploy, and all of their collectable firearms. Collectable firearms can be made safe by making them unable to fire. I mean, if they're collectables, they don't have to, right? As for Switzerland, if we were in Switzerland we wouldn't be having this conversation, there'd be no need for it. When was the last mass shooting of children there? New York's law is bad for a couple of reasons, mostly because it's too easy to get around it, and it's not a NATIONAL law, which is what is required.

4 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-29-13 8:03 AM

"Collectable firearms can be made safe by making them unable to fire. I mean, if their collectable they don't have to, right?" Obviously Mr. Christopher knows nothing about the subject of firearms collecting. If you render a gun permanately non-fireable, you've all but ruined any value of it in most cases, you've turned it into what is known as a "wall hanger". Do that to a collectable car and see happens to the value of it. Moreover, the value of most collectable firearms that have been previously used is not lowered at all by merely firing them or even taking them afield for hunting or target shooting. An exception might be if you found something like an "new in the box" 1876 Colt SSA, but you'd most suredly devalued it by 95% if you weld up the firing pin hole & barrel; then it would be worth no more than the value of its still useable parts.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-29-13 8:12 AM

Look at Wikipedia - List of Rampage Killers

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-29-13 8:13 AM

"In October 2007, the Swiss Federal Council decided that the distribution of ammunition to soldiers shall stop and that all previously issued ammo shall be returned" so much for the swiss having machine guns in their homes.

Have you researched why the second amendment was included? Or the current day meaning? Very interesting and not what most of us assume.

My father was a WWII vet, but he never had any weapons at home. You do not get to keep the weapons they issue you while you are in combat.

Is there a law that guns must be locked at all time when not in use? To me, this would be a good starting point.

Some weapons..and some ammo should be banned for use by civilians. Was there a huge outcry when they banned machine guns?

We need to look at all the ways we can address the increased gun violence in our country, that is killing our children. There is no ONE answer, but if we address it on several different levels at once we just might be able to make a differen

3 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-29-13 8:26 AM

Let's face it, there is no middle ground. Well, there is, but the gun advocates won't admit it. To them, it's all or nothing. As for "Rampage Killings" FredoniaFred, ok, ONE in Switzerland, just ONE, about 12 years ago. On top of "Rampage Killings" we have cities that lose several people a weekend. You have to journey to the third world for that sort of carnage. As for value of collectables, I don't care. Yep, wall hangers would be fine with me. Collect bolt actions.

2 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-29-13 8:27 AM

My dad was a POW during WW2. He brought back a machinegun from his service. He had all of us kids hold it. The he said "Anytime you hold any gun and take aim, you are preparing to kill, be it a target or a person. Any gun is made to kill." Should I ignore my dad? Or my husband who served 2 tours in Viet Nam, who feels the same way? I have had a loaded gun pointed at my face, trigger pulled back, by someone who wanted the money from my cash register. I worry more about the angry guy who goes to a workplace to find his wife/boss/neighbor to settle a score than I do about a massmurdering AR57 toting fool. But ny right to life trumps any outdated constitutional amendment. And I count just as much as the rest of you on the other side.

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-29-13 8:39 AM

If you want to review the current day meaning of the Second Amendment see: the 2008 SCOTUS Decision "District of Columbia v. Heller" & 2010 decision McDonald v. City of Chicago".

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-29-13 8:42 AM

"Was there a huge outcry when they banned machine guns?"

I don't know. How much time was the public given to review and address any submitted legislation before it was passed into law?

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-29-13 9:00 AM

I do not understand the absolute devotion to a piece of metal. And the absolute line the gunlovers refuse to see or cross. Mr. Christopher is correct about there is no middle ground when someone refuses to acknowledge the beliefs of others are valid. We do not live in the wild west. I do not want your weapons. I want to understand why an automatic killing machine is so vital. Is it because you all think the black helicopters are over your house? If that is the case, well, there is nothing you can say that I will understand. But is it a militaristic wannbe soldier mentality? Or do you have a wonderful family history of hunting that you has been passed down? That I understand. But until someone can tell me something other than "IT IS MY RIGHT" you are all bullies and are denying MY RIGHT TO LIFE.

4 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-29-13 9:48 AM

What all of you are failing to see is that no amount of "gun control" will stop crazy people and criminals from getting guns, bombs, knives etc. It will only keep them from honest law abiding citizens.

11 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-29-13 9:50 AM

What troubles me most about the new federal and state gun laws is the speed in which they were enacted. In the heat of the moment, these laws were crammed down our throats without any chance of hearing both sides of the issue.

11 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-29-13 10:00 AM

We have heard the gun side of the issue since the NRA was taken over by LaPierre and his ilk. When did the gun lobby stop being the Hunter Safety Course people? Why did the gun lobby get a law passed BANNING the study of gun violence? We have been held hostage, with no voices allowed to even question anything related to guns. These lobbying groups are not looking out for your rights, they are looking out for Remmington, Strum Rutger and Smith and Wesson. And if they can feed the paranoia that "THEY are coming for my guns, much better, because they will sell more guns. So will you be happy when there are more guns than people? Will you be safe? Good luck with that.

4 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-29-13 10:54 AM

"• Assault weapon ban and definition of assault weapons. We believe that the new definition of assault weapons is too broad, and prevents the possession of many weapons that are legitimately used for hunting, target shooting and self defense. Classifying firearms as assault weapons because of one arbitrary feature effectively deprives people the right to possess firearms which have never before been designated as assault weapons. We are convinced that only law abiding gun owners will be affected by these new provisions, while criminals will still have and use whatever weapons they want."

9 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-29-13 10:54 AM

Love the fact that the New York State Sheriffs Association says the same thing all the gun owners have been saying about the new law."Reduction of ammunition magazine capacity. The new law enacts reductions in the maximum capacity of gun magazines. We believe based on our years of law enforcement experience that this will not reduce gun violence. The new law will unfairly limit the ability of law-abiding citizens to purchase firearms in New York. It bears repeating that it is our belief that the reduction of magazine capacity will not make New Yorkers or our communities safer."

7 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-29-13 11:41 AM

Demmom, do you know that there are private America citizens who actually own (and maintain) their own fighter jets? What's more, they don't need any other license/permit other than the proper FAA flight rating.

In Britain, you can buy surplus military helicopters, army tanks, etc., and drive them (tanks) on public roads with normal traffic.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-29-13 12:08 PM

Judeye, unfortunately, you’re wrong again. Switzerland had issued military weapons to all its adult males for decades. They were required to be proficient with them as they were the Militia protecting their country. Switzerland was the only nation in Europe, not allied with Germany, that wasn’t attacked by Germany. Hitler knew every man in Switzerland was not only armed but proficient with their weapon and he would face a citizenry protecting their homeland. In 2007, the Swiss Federal Council decided to not issue ammo any more and to recall that which was issued. Full automatic Sig 550 rifles are still issued and kept at homes of men under 30; their period of service in the Militia. Once their service commitment is complete, the guns are returned and the auto sears removed, rendering the weapons semi-automatic. The semi-automatic weapons are then returned to the men to keep if they so desire. The Swiss aren’t giving them the ammo anymore but they still give them the weapons.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-29-13 12:20 PM

demmom, who is denying your right to life? Because a criminal commits a crime with a gun, you want to take guns from everyone else? Medical malpractice kills more people than anything else in this country so why not get rid of doctors? Your doctor is more a threat to your life than a neighbor with a gun. Besides, nobody owns automatic weapons unless they have a class 3 FFL which takes the equivalent of a secret security clearance investigation to get. Also, the NRA still holds gun and hunter safety classes. Most states require CCW instructors to be NRA certified and the NRA also provides most of the training to the nations police departments. So, when you want to attack the NRA, how about getting some facts instead of talking points of the anti-gun left

9 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-29-13 5:29 PM

Anyone think that demmom is a little off in her comments. Who is after her life? And what did she do to tick someone off that much? Does demmom stand for democrat mom? Great letter BTW.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-29-13 5:42 PM

If you read the Observer news story, "Sheriff's Breakdown new SAFE Act Law" you'll note that some 51 of the state's county sheriff's have sent a letter to the governor as to their collective concerns &opinions of the law. In that letter they expressed support for the requirement the weapons must be stored securely if you have a felon, a person convicted if a misdeameanor crime of domestic violence or under a current domestic violence Order of Protection living with you. That's real nice and all, except for the fact that IT'S AGAINST FEDERAL LAW TO KNOWINGLY ALLOW SUCH PERSONS TO LIVE WITH YOU IF YOU HAVE GUNS AND AMMUNITION. They're not even suppose to visit you if you have guns in the house! This is yet another example of the very many flaws in this law! If I know of the federal law, why didn't Albany, or for that matter the sheriff's know about it?! And you wonder why currentgun laws go un-enforced?

6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-29-13 5:52 PM

kcw007 contin: Here's an excerpt from the previously mentioned letter from the county sheriff's group to the governor. Under the section entitled: Safe Storage of Firearms: "The new law provides that guns must be safely stored if the owner lives with someone who has been convicted of felony or domestic violence crime (see: Lautenberg Amendment)...or is currently under an order of protection." It certainly looks like the state is giving the go ahead for felons to live in your home just so long as you keep your guns locked up; doesn't it? Unfortunately federal law prevails.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-29-13 5:59 PM

You can read the sheriff's letter at the Post Journal website.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-29-13 6:15 PM

Surprised the left haven't said how wrong the sheriffs association is or how bad those gun loving police are for advocating for legal owners and telling the prince he is wrong.

7 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-29-13 7:16 PM

Obviously the state county sheriff's, along with the rest of law enforcement in the state, want little to do with this law. I would offer that, in military slang, it is most appropriately labeled FUBAR & TARFU.

8 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-29-13 7:59 PM

kcw007, it was legislation to make the uninformed think they’re doing something. By some of the statements here, we can see there are those that don’t have a clue what Federal and even NY State law is concerning firearms. Shoot, many of them think people are walking around with full automatic weapons and you can buy them right over the internet and have them shipped right to your door.

7 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 40 comments Show More Comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web