Gun Grabber Stupidity

Bill called 'toughest gun control package in the nation' passed by New York Senate

From the article:

Under current state law, assault weapons are defined by having two "military rifle" features spelled out in the law. The proposal would reduce that to one feature and include the popular pistol grip.

 Really? Hey, idiots, meet the Ruger Mini-14. It has no "evil" features and fires the .223 Remington/5.56 NATO round, the same as an AR-15. The pretty wood stock and lack of pistol grip, folding stock, bayonet mount, threaded barrel, etc., don't detract from its effectiveness at all.

The reasons people like AR-15s aren't because they're more "deadly" than other guns. They like them because they're standardized. They're the IBM PCs of the rifle world. Open military specs. mean dozens of companies make barrels, stocks, magazines, uppers, lowers, and every possible part. Ruger Mini-14s are nice, but they have only a fraction of the market share and thus have only a fraction of the possible suppliers and innovators.

The reasons AR-15s particularly need pistol grips is that the charging handle runs straight out the back of the action, making a standard rifle stock awkward. Also, the recoil spring runs back into a tube in the stock at a spot too high to get your thumb around, so it's extremely difficult to make a stock for an AR action that's not a pistol grip or thumbhole stock that you can get your thumb around while remaining a sturdy stock. It's not "deadlier," it's just the way the gun was designed.  Lots of shooters actually prefer standard rifle stocks. It's totally a matter of preference. The pistol grip doesn't make it more "deadly." It's simply a matter of modern ergonomics. It would be like outlawing bucket seats on your car.

All the major selling points of the AR-15 are simply about reliability, ease of care, standardization and ergonomics. None of them are about making the rifle more deadly.

I have a .223 with a composite, folding stock. Composite, because it's light and weather-proof and I don't have to worry about ruining it if I get caught out in the rain while trudging across my ranch. Folding, because when I am doing said trudging across said ranch, I'd like the package I'm lugging over my shoulder to be as light and compact as possible, not getting caught on every piece of brush or tree branch I'm passing. It has an accessory rail for a light, so if something's attacking one of my calves in the dark, I can see it. It has a mount for a holographic site, so my old eyes can get a target more accurately.

I have magazines for that rifle ranging from 10 to 30 rounds. 10's the small magazine it came with.. I have 30-round magazines because they are the industry standard AR-15 mags. They're not "high-capacity" - - they're the normal magazines for AR-style rifles. They're reliable, they're what everybody uses. They're light, standardized and simple. I live in a rural area and I've gone out to confront groups of strangers armed with shotguns and rifles on my property by myself. I've never had any trouble and I wouldn't really care to bet on my odds if shooting started, but frankly, when they see the rifle, even the armed people are polite. They know I can fire off a lot of rounds fast. Nobody wants to get shot over something dumb, even if they can shoot back. You'll never understand what "An armed society is a polite society" means until you're standing there with your .223 facing four guys with rifles and 12 gauge shotguns and saying, "So, what are y'all doing on my property?" Everybody is very polite.

You know when bad people aren't polite? When they have the upper hand. If I'm armed with a low-capacity and/or slow-firing weapon, all they need to do is outnumber me. If I'm unarmed, all they have to do is outnumber me, or be bigger and stronger than me. I don't want to take on four average to clumsy guys with sharp sticks if I'm unarmed. I have a human right to self-defense and that includes a right to effective self-defense, and in this day and age that means a semi-automatic firearm.

OK, let's talk about "more deadly." Given that I own my rifle with the possibility of killing people (in justified self-defense) in mind, I want my rifle to be as deadly as possible. I really can't think of anything that's a typical military feature that would make any quality semi-auto .223 notably more deadly than any other. If I could, I'd add it to my rifle.

Lack of a pistol grip, folding stock, bayonet mount, threaded barrel, flash suppressor, etc., would not slow me down the tiniest little bit if I were an armed madman in a "gun-free" zone.

Thus, I can only conclude that this ban has absolutely nothing to do with stopping a repeat of the Sandy Hook shooting.

On to the next point.

Private sales of assault weapons to someone other than an immediate family would be subject to a background check through a dealer. Also Internet sales of assault weapons would be banned, and failing to safely store a weapon could be subject to a misdemeanor charge.

These are laws just begging to be ignored by anyone with bad intent. They have no predictive utility. Anybody who's willing to shoot up a school is willing to buy a gun "under the table." Or just use a "non-assault weapon" since i just showed that assault weapons aren't any deadlier than any other.

Ammunition magazines would be restricted to seven bullets, from the current 10, and current owners of higher-capacity magazines would have a year to sell them out of state. An owner caught at home with eight or more bullets in a magazine could face a misdemeanor charge.

All the previous objections apply to this rule. With extra ignorability. Nobody's going to get rid of their magazines. Police aren't going to do house-to-house searches and the things are small, unregistered and easily hidden. What's the likelihood someone would get caught? In my 49 years, police have searched my home exactly, um, ... carry the one ... oh, ZERO times. You wouldn't know if one of these crazies had a banned magazine until after the shooting. So what's the point? Except to make me less secure when defending myself against multiple intruders/tresspassers.

Plus, seven rounds is ridiculous. I own only one semi-automatic weapon that has a magazine that holds seven rounds or less. I have weapons with stripper clips that hold more than that. An old M1 Garand has an eight round en bloc clip and a fixed magazine. Turns out they're grandfathered because they're antiques and have fixed magazines (thoughI think you're only allowed to load seven rounds. I guess the battle rifle that sustained our infantry through WW II isn't deadly.

Since seven rounds is the standard capacity of a single-stack Model 1911 .45 (that 1911 is the year it was developed, and it wasn't the first semi-auto pistol. Semi-auto weapons are *not* new-fangled!), you're going to see sales of single-stack .45s skyrocket. If you can only put a few holes in someone, you want them to be big holes.

Even for the baby Glock 9mm, the model 26, the smallest magazine is 10 rounds. The only 9mm semi-autos that have a standard capacity less than 10 rounds are the highly-concealable single stack sub-compacts. The kind that are most used for concealed carry, but also the kind of handguns that are used for actual crimes, not the extremely rare, spectacular incidents that cause people to run around like Chicken Little.

Even my .22 target pistol has a 10-round magazine.

New York is basically contemplating outlawing the vast majority of detachable magazines in existence. And it won't even work, because it's so unenforceable. All it will do is make criminals out of thousands of otherwise law-abiding people.

In another provision, a therapist who believes a mental health patient made a credible threat to use a gun illegally would be required to report the incident to a mental health director who would have to report serious threats to the state Department of Criminal Justice Services. A patient's gun could be taken from him or her.

In virtually every state, a credible threat to harm one's self or others (regardless of use of a gun) is grounds to have a person designated "mentally ill and a danger to himself/herself or others" and can already be used to confiscate the person's guns. Expanding it to "use a gun illegally" logically only expands to include non-violent illegal uses of a gun, like letting your therapist know you plan on carrying one without a permit because you're in fear for your life. That's illegal use of a gun, and your therapist is obligated to report it.

The obvious takeaway from this is: gun owners, never, ever see a therapist. You never know what you might say in a moment of weakness or hyperbole that can be misinterpreted. Whether it's a "credible threat" is entirely in the mind of your therapist, the Department of Criminal Justice Services and the magistrate you'll be paraded in front of. Do you feel lucky? Well, do ya? If you feel a need to spill your guts to someone, find a friend and have a couple beers. If you don't have any friends, give a few bucks to a stripper and talk away. She'll pretend to be sympathetic as long as the money's coming, just like a therapist, and she's way hotter.

Again, nothing in any of these laws would have prevented any of the recent mass shootings. Thus, we can only conclude that the laws aren't meant to prevent such shootings.