Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

5 Bumps

If you have 8 rounds loaded it's a misdemeanor, if you have 7, it's legal. (to provide EQUAL coverage to the issue)

WTF difference does that make? Does anyone honestly believe a mass shooter is going to be dissuaded from shooting up a crowded public place because he might be charged with a misdemeanor?

Is this really the logic of the anti-gun lobby?

And this part:
Requires any therapist who believes a mental health patient made a credible threat of harming others to report the threat to a mental health director, who would then have to report serious threats to the state Department of Criminal Justice Services.

Only mental health patients? In other words, only people ALREADY getting treatment. Not, say, people like that kid in CT who killed his mother and stole her legally registered weapons?

And this is hysterical:
Tightens the state's description of an "assault" weapon. Previous state law defined an assault weapon as having two "military rifle" features, but the new law reduces that specification to just one feature

So in other words, if you have a collapsing stock on your gun so both husband and wife can use it, despite having different length arms, it is now an "assault weapon", but if you take the collapsing stock off, it's not an "assault weapon" anymore. Does that stock make the .22 round magically contain more gunpowder?

I guess we should all be thankful that not ALL states are wasting their money on ridiculous laws like this. I realize there's already another question about this, but there's hardly room in a reply to address all the flaws with the new law.

So really now, does anyone who actually knows anything about guns or mental health feel safer by that law going into place? Does anyone believe it will prevent a single crime from occurring?

(you'll find all specific info mentioned here in the same link provided by the post below, which describes this law as a gigantic glitter farting unicorn)

Answer Question

Asked by NotPanicking at 7:54 PM on Jan. 15, 2013 in Politics & Current Events

Level 51 (421,174 Credits)
Answers (12)
  • To anyone who knows nothing about guns, just the fact that everyone is saying these are the toughest gun laws on the books is going to make them feel good about it. It does nothing and still doesn't address a lot of the issues that need to be addressed. Especially the mental health issues that are more of a concern to me than what type of gun someone owns.

    Answer by kmath at 7:58 PM on Jan. 15, 2013

  • Even with mental illness, it would on,y apply to those in treatment as you pointed out. How about the mentally ill individuals that refuse to seek help (unless we are going to take those rights away and require that ALL individuals get evaluated on an ongoing schedule as required by the nanny state), do not own guns but know where to find them?

    Answer by QuinnMae at 8:02 PM on Jan. 15, 2013

  • I don't know much about guns, but what was posted in the original question doesn't seem to address anything that would actually prevent or deter anything. JMO.

    Answer by QuinnMae at 8:03 PM on Jan. 15, 2013

  • There's not a single provision of this law that would've prevented Connecticut, Columbine, Virginia Tech or even that recent overblown shooting in CA (the state that had the "strictest gun laws evah" up until today). I can't for the life of me imagine why anyone is celebrating their tax money being wasted on it.

    Comment by NotPanicking (original poster) at 8:04 PM on Jan. 15, 2013

  • NY loves nanny govt., 16 oz. sodas and government determining how much pain medication a patient can get. I'm almost afraid of what their government will save them from next.

    Answer by QuinnMae at 8:09 PM on Jan. 15, 2013

  • I myself can see people moving away from NY to avoid this. I know that I would. (Of course I would have been gone long before now!) I haven't heard anything about this new stricter safer legislation that actually makes me feel safer. There are too many people who are mentally "ill" by some standards who do not go to the doc for every little problem, and thereby slip through that little loophole. And quite frankly, if someone is inclined to go on a shooting spree, that little difference in the size of the magazine will make no difference whatsoever.

    Answer by 29again at 8:21 PM on Jan. 15, 2013

  • What kmath said^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    Answer by m-avi at 8:32 PM on Jan. 15, 2013

  • what mavi said about what kmath said ^^^

    Answer by luvmygrandbaby at 8:35 PM on Jan. 15, 2013

  • So the political peacock can puff out his chest & strut around his fellow peaCOCK comrades that he did SOMETHING to help his fellow peacockians. It's all a game to these idiots, when in reality it does nothing to deter the criminals who are intent on destruction.  Someone should throw at Big Gulp in his face to wake him up to reality.


    Answer by mrsmom110 at 9:27 PM on Jan. 15, 2013

  • Ok, so who deems what one would consider a 'creditable threat' of harming others? What if a person who is just blowing steam tells their therapist the clerk at WalMart put eggs in the bag then put can on top of them and the eggs broke and says " I just want to kill that bitch! Now I eggs all over my Ferrari GTO leather interior " So next thing these people know is the ATF is storming their home taking all their gun, ammo, and magazines out of there. But leave the fertilizer, and other materials there. Next thing you know, the govt has egg on their faces, cause WalMart was blown up.
    If folks can't have guns, they will find another way to raise hell and discontent, or just buy more mags for their gun.

    Answer by Michigan-Mom74 at 11:58 PM on Jan. 15, 2013

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.