SPEAK UP: Should the SAFE Act gun-control law be repealed? YESTERDAY'S RESULTS: Have you ever run in a 5K race? 34 YES, 125 NO

Poll choices
Poll posted 3 years ago.

63 Comments

  • Wayne Pyle - 3 years ago

    Reading through post after post like this all around the internet, I hear a lot of the same arguments, and most of them sound like people who are afraid, no, terrified, of losing something. Their guns, yes, but also their power. Perceived power. I hear people who are ANGRY and feel threatened by the government, by radical blah, blah, blah religions, liberals, atheism, brown people, terrorists, gay people, poor people, trans people, anyone NOT like them that they feel they might need to defend themselves against and therefore deserve to be able to buy any gun they damn well please.

    When I read their words, I can almost feel them gripping their guns so tightly their fists turn purple, even as people who are NOT them are dying and grieving and seeking some kind of solution to gun violence because of the pain of losing someone they love.

    I never thought I'd say this, but after reading all of these same posts over and over again, perhaps it isn't the guns we need to focus on after all. Don't get me wrong, I don't think guns are the answer to any question except, "What are those things that shoot bullets called?" Besides, the whole "guns don't kill people" crowd will just keep shouting their badly argued refrains as loudly as they can so they don't have to hear the screams of their dying children and neighbors and loved ones.

    Perhaps, we need to shift our attention from guns, which translates to being scared of losing something (power, rights, guns) to what we can contribute (give, offer, put forth) to each other. How can we make a difference in each other's lives? Do we really need a gun to do that? ("Here's some help, now take it or I'll shoot you?") What happens if we do instate a few more strict rules about the responsibilities of owning a gun and impose a longer waiting period? Do we lose that much of our rights and dignity as human beings? When future generations read about us on whatever cool technology replaces tablets and smartphones, will they really say to themselves, "Geez, they were really stupid, those people back in 2016. Look how they tried to help stop mass killings by putting in place a few extra rules about guns? Ha! Guns don't kill people! Now get back here and help me load my Mk 23, Mark 7, 16 inch, .50 caliber cannon with these nuclear shells I bought online with no waiting period from Giganto Guns Galore. Woohoo! America!"

    What are you going to use them for? These guns? Can they build a house? Can they read a child a book? Can they give someone a hug? What are you defending yourself from? Other than the OTHER (not us, THEM)?

    I know there are bad things out there, people with bad intentions, people who want to kill or maim or destroy other people for whatever myth or story they might believe in at the time. But what if the majority of us focused on how to help people rather on how to defend ourselves from them? What if we took down the labels and the walls and the FEAR and said, "Look human in need of the basic things humans need: food, water, clothing, love, affection, a helping hand, an open heart, a little bit of sympathy?" When you get to know someone they no longer become the frightful OTHER - they who must be kept at bay with weapons.

    We can keep going in circles. We can keep asking, "Why should we give up our guns? What good will it do if the bad people still have them?" Or, we can stop and ask a different question, "Did what I do today come from a place of fear or from a place of love? Did I make a difference?" I have a feeling that if we lived that question, gun violence would be lower.

    Guns can conquer a lot. The bigger the gun, the more people you can scare, bully or kill. But they can't conquer everything. Virgil's old adage is, "Love conquers all." ALL means guns, too, and fear and hate and injustice and evil and hunger and poverty and all of the other bogeymen and women. Love conquers all. How long will it take for us to remember that? If we don't, will anyone be left stan

  • 2brknot2b...free - 3 years ago

    All anti-gun laws are meant to control only the law abiding. They should all be repealed.. In NY that includes all of PL 265, PL 400 and other parts of other laws.

  • Some Guy - 3 years ago

    I honestly don't know. What is the SAFE Act? What does it say? A lot of commenters here seem upset about keeping it or repealing it. Try some kind of compromise where half of each municipality enforces it and half repeals it. After 5 or 10 years, see which side fared better.

  • Barbara Hobens - 3 years ago

    Our founding fathers did not mean that we should all "gun up" to kill, oh, 32,000 fellow-Americans this past year. They MEANT that Americans IN THE MILITIA ....in a WELL REGULATED MILITIA should have the RIGHT to have a gun to protect their security.

    This is what the 2nd amendment states: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms."

    Wish we had strong leaders that would enforce this, but we do not. So, we must change the laws. No more semi-or automatic weapons. Who needs a clip of bullets? That would be a very chopped up deer!

    Smith & Wesson developed a smart gun that the NRA squashed. 1. With all the high-tech now, make each gun only operable when the fingerprint of the registered owner is used (just like new cars!), Written and practical tests must be passed after mandatory lessons. Eye test and background check must be passed, and proof of proper storage and insurance. ALL NEW GUNS will be made with new bullets that can only be used with fingerprint guns...phase out all new ammunition over a time period. Pass laws and enforce them.

  • Jarrod - 3 years ago

    The state of Vermont has absolutely no permit system for handguns -- open or conceal carry.

    The state of Vermont also has absolutely no regulations on magazine capacity, or "cosmetic features".

    The state of Vermont also allows the federally regulated Class III firearms -- short barrel rifles, suppressed firearms, short barrel shotguns, etc.

    The state of Vermont has ranked in the top ten states for an education in the past five years, consistently ranking in the top five -- even scoring #1 in 2010 for best state education according to the ALEC group.

    The state of Vermont also has consistently ranked either the lowest in the nation, or the second lowest, in homicide rates, and is often ranked the lowest on violent crimes.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/381136/vermont-safe-and-happy-and-armed-teeth-charles-c-w-cooke

    An armed (and educated) society is a polite society.

    Have a good day folks.

  • Brian Bertha - 3 years ago

    First the latest incident is about RADICAL ISLAMIST TERRORISTS not the gun they used which was NOT an AR 15 (look it up) The gun didnt kill anyone by it self it required a Terrorist to pull its trigger. NO we can all argue about if we do or do not think we have enough gun controls. Everyone talks about the second amendment giving us a right and the usually forget the last sentence which includes the phase SHALL NOT INFRINGE which means the Federal government does not have authority to restrict the use of law abiding citizens. Congress only authority is to pass an Amendment repealing the second amendment which for over 200 years they have not done. In addition even if they did is an old saying "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6" So be careful about laws you want and put yourself in the position of those that will be told to enforce them.

  • Laughable - 3 years ago

    Information for those who are not familiar with firearms and what the media will not tell you.

    The primary reason the military chose the ammunition was so more ammo could be carried, the round chosen is significantly lighter and smaller then what was used prior. The military also did the math, more rounds ment more hits, but it didn't mean more deaths, it ment more wounded, dead men don't fight back but dead men also don't need to be rushed to a medic for help. Wounded men however will require more resources men to get them off the battle field for treatment leavening even less men to fight back

    The misinformation that the rifle was built specifically to kill as many as possible is based on a lie. In a conventional battle it was meant to wound. Battles have changed and the people being fought do not tend to wounded immediately like in wars passed. The military today is looking for alternatives. The rounds used are powerful yes but far less powerful then the popular hunting ammunition. So much so some states ban the use of the common .223 for hunting big game, NY is not one of them, and contrary to misinformation the AR platform is a great hunting rifle especially in larger calibers which are more suitable for larger game.

    The common caliber (bullet size) associated with the gun is the 5.56 it was was designed based off a .223 round made for varmint hunting, not specifically for the military, the military changed it ever so slightly and called it the 5.556 and adopted it.

    Pistol grips, barrel shrouds, flash hiders, muzzle breaks do not make guns more accurate, a quality barrel, quality ammunition, and matching bolt make a gun more accurate. I can assure the off the shelf rifles are no more accurate they any other rifle. and no pistol grips where not designed too shoot from the hip. it offers ergonomic and comfort. Does being comfortable automatically make you a better shot ... NO, practice does.

    The truth is none of listed features make the rifle more accurate or more "deadly" they make it more comfortable to hold and shoot. If you can't shoot a traditional rifle stock your not going to magically be able to pick up an AR and be good at it.

    All the banned features do offer performance gains. But what the media won't tell you is the gains are negligible compared to a "traditional semi automatic rifle" The difference is measured in seconds .... Meaning an AR can only do what a "traditional" semi automatic rifle can useing the same ammo tenths or hundredths of seconds faster.

    The only people who notice the difference are proffessionals who .... Practice ... And they need a clock designed to start and stop based on the sound of a gun shot to even measure the difference.

    That's right your "traditional" semi automatic rifle useing the same type of ammunition is quit capable of doing the same harm in a crowded confined space.

    Why won't the media or politicians tell you this! Because it makes you "feel safer" if you don't know the truth.

    Why are so many so called "assault weapons" the gun of choice in recent years ... Yes they do carry allot of ammo, something that many gun owners don't like to admit but it is def a factor why they are chosen by nut jobs, but gun owners also know unarmed people aren't going to try to jump a guy with a gun when he is changing magazines and magazines are easily changed, the best hope is for a gun to jam. People do try and jump a gunman they end up shot. In rare cases they succeed.

    For those who wonder why people want to own an "AR15" ... You won't understand unless your familiar with firearms Rather then being ill informed go out and shoot different rifles and you'll understand.

    Why do nut jobs use these types of rifles? A simple and once again avoided answer by media .. they are just popular.

    Size: they are smaller and more nimble, then "traditional" looking semi automatic rifles. Yes! what the media won't tell you. There has been federal laws restricting overal

  • M - 3 years ago

    "Tim" says:

    "If the founding fathers didn't want citizens to own nuclear arms, they would have said so in the constitution".

    They did, fool. The term "arms" was historically defined as rifles & pistols.

    Way to make a really, really bad straw man argument!

  • Tim - 3 years ago

    The 2nd amendment says our right to bear arms is without restrictions. It doesn't say "only if you're older than 18" or "only if you haven't committed a felony" or "only if you're not an Islamic terrorist". So stop trying to restrict people's right to bear arms.

    As a matter of fact, the 2nd amendment doesn't mention it, so the government should not be able to restrict my right to bear nuclear arms. Hydrogen bombs don't kill people, people kill people. I can keep an atomic bomb on my kitchen table for 20 years and, if left alone, it won't hurt anybody. And if some day I catch my neighbor's dog once again pissing on my lawn and decide to teach him a lesson by setting off that bomb, I should be prosecuted to the full extent of the laws that are already on the books. But don't restrict my constitutional right to bear nuclear arms!

    If the founding fathers didn't want citizens to own nuclear arms, they would have said so in the constitution.

  • Kenneth - 3 years ago

    After 28 years in the SP and four as a paratrooper I can unequivocally state that the "SafeAct" has not done one thing to make NY'ers safer. Nearly Every arrest made under its banner has been one that would have been made previous to it. All it did was further regulate and disarm lawful gun owners. But that is by design, they don't vote Dem for the most part. Gilbert, your yuppification of the legislation sounds nice for your target audience but short on truth and accuracy.

  • commonsense - 3 years ago

    To those who think Trump's calling for a ban on the vast majority of law abiding Muslims from entering the country in order to make us "safer" from a rogue few is an act of morally unconscionable bigotry, well, calling for a ban on the AR-15 from the vast majority law abiding citizens because of the acts of a rogue few is an equivalent ignorant bigotry. Chew on that and abandon the demagoguery resulting from your unfamiliarity with America's most popular sporting rifle. You're literally surrounded by a million or more well behaved AR-15s in NY and have been for quite some time. They have gone no where (and sales remain brisk). SAFE didn't change that at all. You put your fellow citizens at far more risk when you get in you car in the morning than those AR's pose. Google rifle homicides and then pull out the AR-15s. Want to make people safer in a meaningful way? Sell your car and buy a bike.

  • Can't Wait To Move - 3 years ago

    Safe in NY, you say there haven't been any mass shootings in NY since the SAFE Act passed. Using the liberal standard of at least four people being shot, here are the "mass shootings" in NY in 2015 alone:

    Buffalo:
    5/4/2015 4 shot 1 dead
    6/6/2015 5 shot 1 dead

    Gates:
    6/6/2015 7 shot 1 dead

    Rochester:
    5/16/2015 4 shot
    8/19/2015 7 shot 3 dead
    9/12/2015 6 shot 2 dead

    Syracuse:
    7/4/2015 4 shot

    Newburgh:
    11/22/2015 5 shot

    Bronx:
    5/4/2015 4 shot
    6/13/2015 5 shot
    7/20/2015 6 shot

    Manhattan:
    2/1/2015 5 shot 1 dead
    6/24/2015 4 shot

    Brooklyn:
    4/27/2015 6 shot 2 dead
    6/15/2015 4 shot
    8/2/2015 9 shot
    8/3/2015 5 shot
    8/28/2015 4 shot 1 dead

    Queens:
    1/24/2015 5 shot 4 dead

    North Amityville:
    5/30/2015 4 shot 1 dead

    Wyandanch:
    6/3/2015 4 shot 3 dead

    All the SAFE Act did was go after law abiding gun owners. The real problem isn't guns at all, it's people. Think about it, heroin is banned, but yet there are people dying of overdoses everyday because of it. You can't legislate a criminals behavior away.

  • Most of Onondaga County - 3 years ago

    > so shit your mouths and enjoy the fact that we haven't had a mass shooting since its enactment .,

    We hadn't had any "mass shootings" with them prior, you fraud.

    Meanwhile, NONE of those "banned" weapons were surrendered, nor were the "high cap magazines" surrendered or destroyed. EVERYONE still has them, again proving your claims are nothing more than intentional deception.

    We will not give them up. You will have to come and take them from us. Door to door, EVERY house. Most every house is armed. We will defend each other.

    You are as big a fraud as the SAFE act is.

  • Chris - 3 years ago

    Three hundred scared people with weapons in the dark with no idea where or who the shooter is. Recipe for disaster with the death toll at 250 instead of 49. If anything training for close in fighting would be more valuable and give someone a better chance of taking the right person out. These yahoos on this site thinking they could pull their guns and get a kill in that situation are fooling themselves. Most likely they would kill a couple of innocent people first.

  • Laughable - 3 years ago

    Safe act supporters who now "feel safe" but yet have no clue what the law actually accomplished. Which it accomplished nothing when it comes to madmen doing what they do.

    You want to end mass shootings, ban all guns ... Good luck with that.

    If you don't want more mass shootings ban groups of more then 4 people ... The type of gun and its scarry features wasn't the reason for so many fatalities, It was the concentration of people. How much ammo an individual can carry is also a factor. The fact the victims of Orlando had no where to go, Hell one person admitted to locking people in the building.

    The notion the type of gun was the reason shows a complete lack of knowledge on the subject of guns and what they are capable of.

    A club full of scarred people not one willing to engage the attacker. Do you think the gun he had mattered? If it where a "hunting rifle" or shotgun revolver, are you going to be the one who rushes that person.

    The answer is no.

    These people where defensless, packed in a confined space. No different then every other incident that has transpired in recent years. Movie theater, sheltered in place at a school, business gathering in a hall.

    Just because you feel safer doesn't mean you are. There are screwed up people in the world and if you choose to be defensless that's your right. It my right to choose not be defensless.

    Nothing can stop someone from becoming a potential victim, but you can however choose whether you want to be a helpless one or not. And that is the right the 2nd amendment protects. The right to not be helpless and the right to defend yourself.

    You can't predict crazy and in this case I doubt you could have even treated it, not a single law that exists on the books will stop this type of crap from occurring in one way or another.

  • Tony Cutolo - 3 years ago

    Safe in NY Name an incident in NY PRIOR to the unSAFE Act Love all these liberal cowards hiding behind fake names.

  • Stan Quick - 3 years ago

    Bunch of liberal morons on here, I see. Funny how they degrade gun owners, but have no problem with an armed military, as long as it protects their sorry asses. As a vet, they make me sick. It was alright for me to carry a weapon, to protect you, but I can't have one to protect myself, and my family? Screw you! Someone brought up Israel, as an example of "success" concerning gun control. Yeah-a success for the Palestinians, who are able to just stab them outright. I find it funny, as to how not one of these liberals mentioned the Paris attacks. How'd those stringent gun laws in France work out for them? Over 130 dead, and hundreds wounded. Boy, that worked out well-didn't it? As for the person who moved here from St. Louis, you don't know shit about this state. I was born, and raised, in the communist state of New York (I'm 50), and yet you think you know everything about this state. As for Gilbert, the governor just wants total power, over his minions. If you have no problem with someone dictating your life, that's your problem.

  • Matt J - 3 years ago

    Hey all you stupid liberals. How did the civilian ban of gun ownership work out in Paris for preventing their recent attack?

    Answer me this, if your kid or spouse or parent was in that club, or in the theatre in aurora colorado, would you rather they were sitting ducks, or they had the means to defend themself?

    Heres what it comes down to, what gives you, or cuomo, obama, hillary or anybody else the right to tell me how to best protect myself and my family? And you realize the same people passing these laws have 24/7 armed security for themselves and their family, where is the rush to disarm their guards? Do their kids (who are most likely going to turn out like their idiot liberal parents) lives have more value than my kids? And to those who will talk about training and such, most police agencies only require their officers to qualify at the range once a year. I go once a week.

    The political side in this country that is trying to normalize people's right to chop their penis off and use the same bathroom as my daughter, and who are all in favor of flooding our country with muslims, indisputably the common denominator in the overwhelming majority of terror attacks in the past several decades, want to say that myself and others like me, who refuse to give up our right to protect ourselves and loved ones, have a mental disorder?

    You are all destroying our nation, state, and my childrens future, may you all rot in gender neutral gun free bathrooms in the seventh layer of muslim hell.

  • NY'er - 3 years ago

    https://www.facebook.com/cecilia.collopy/photos?source_ref=pb_friends_tl your ignorance shows!!!!!

  • Safe in NY - 3 years ago

    Everyone from NY is complaining about the safe act, except have any of you, or your loved ones, been a victim of a mass shooting in NY? The answer is no .. Why .. Because we haven't had any since .. Repeal it and what happens if it truly is the reason it's kept you safe ? Do you really want to have the theory tested ? Of course not., so shit your mouths and enjoy the fact that we haven't had a mass shooting since its enactment .,

  • M - 3 years ago

    The "SAFE" act is as unconstitutional as it gets. Dim folk like "Gilbert" here argue what he thinks people "need" as grounds to usurp God given rights. Worse, he so utterly misreads the 2nd Amendment's history and context (stop over emphasizing the word "regulated"--you have NO idea what you are talking about and come across as a fool) so as to be laughable. Hint: read the Heller case and educate yourself. Being a blowhard doesn't make you right. It is purely an individual right utterly disconnected from military service. When written the militia WAS the people and NOT a standing army.

    Lets try some logic to shed light on just how wrong people like him are. Re-word the 2nd Amendment as follows:

    "A well educated populace being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and read books shall not be infringed".

    So, Gilbert, does this mean only educated people or special people can read books? Or, may they only be read if in a library?

    Let's be blunt: The 2nd Amendment was created to prevent tyrants like Cuomo from passing such laws literally in the middle of the night and with no input from the public. Think this is OK? Fine. Let's keep trampling the amendments you do happen to agree with.

    More and more good people are fed up and not going to take it anymore. Be careful of poking the sleeping giant of patriotic and constitution upholding Americans. At some point they will realize they don't have to listen to blowhards passing BS laws and you know what? The latter sipping urban pansies who are fawning for socialism won't be able to do a damned thing about it.

  • Long Islander - 3 years ago

    Cecilia, your ignorance is appalling. The unSAFE Act has not only been a practical and a policy failure but it has resulted in making countless LAW ABIDING NY'ers more vulnerable and at greater risk. Criminals do not obey the law, certainly not gun laws. The restrictions and limitations placed on LAW ABIDING gun owners has not helped a single person nor has it protected a single individual.
    No one used an automatic weapon in Orlando, it was a semi-automatic rifle and it was deployed in a GUN FREE ZONE where LAW ABIDING people could not legally possess a firearm (very similar to what unSAFE creates) to defend themselves.
    The guard, was in fact a cop. Off duty and working as a security officer. A trained observer and in the use of his weapon, he was caught off guard and outgunned...not his fault.
    Stop putting the blame on the gun and start blaming the eff'ing criminal. The murdering terrorist who slaughtered those people is the problem NOT the firearm.
    There is an old saying, 'when seconds count, the police are only minutes away'.
    If I had been at that club or I had a loved one there I would have hoped that there was a good guy with a gun. He may have saved countless lives. But not in your world.

  • Barney - 3 years ago

    Safe Act is not only unConstitutional it has been a huge failure. Princess Andy has yet to show how very few sheep their are in NYS. His laws are based on cosmetics…. NOT function.

    It's like banning all cars with racing stripes to control speeding.

    To all whining about full auto rifles and pistols. Please stop. They've been ILLEGAL in NYS since before you were born.

  • Cecilia Collopy - 3 years ago

    The Safe Act has been a huge success. I have moved here from St. Louis, and I am so proud of the steps our state has taken. We need to do more. No civilians need automatic rifles and hand guns. A security guard with a gun could not stop a gunman armed with an automatic rifle and Glock handgun - as the NRA"s propaganda would have us believe. And the gunman bought the guns legally the day before! It is a tragedy and disgrace that our country continues to do nothing and allows this to take place.

  • Mois T. Nugget - 3 years ago

    The SAFE Act has been an abysmal failure and has accomplished absolutely nothing besides further dividing New York and completely alienating Upstate voters. Independent estimates state that only 3% of assault weapon owners turned in their rifles, the rest choosing to be de-facto felons by keeping theirs in violation of State law.

    Was punishing hundreds of thousands of innocent people part of Cuomo's plan? It must have been, seeing as how even the federal government has admitted that Assault Weapon Bans like SAFE have no real effect when it comes to reducing gun violence (stated in reference to the Clinton-era Federal AWB). This comes as no surprise seeing as how the usage of assault weapons in gun crime is massively overblown by the media. Anybody who unironically supports Assault Weapon Bans like SAFE is either woefully ignorant of issue at hand or has a tenuous grasp on reality.

    At a time when our nation is becoming increasingly divided, we do not need our resident idiots in Albany making things worse by blatantly pandering to the liberal base in NYC while throwing everyone else under the bus (and I say this as a committed member of the Left). The SAFE Act is a disgrace as is Cuomo, and both should be removed ASAP.

  • Alex - 3 years ago

    Hey Gilbert, did you hear about the pharmacist that needed 12 rounds to take down an attacker who had a shotgun? Two less bullets and he could have gotten shot with a shotgun.
    How about AR-15 restrictions? People need to pin their magazines and feed the magazine through the action. Good thing we have more laws, because we all know that criminals follow the law... Wake up and realize that evil can't be legislated away.
    What happened was a tragedy, but we honestly need to start being more proactive in our self defense. We also need to stop giving so much attention to attackers, because now they all just think there's a new high score to beat.

  • Tony Cutolo - 3 years ago

    Gilbert Hetherwick I find your comment interesting in that you seem to have a grasp of the SAFE Act. But I disagree with your line of thinking. You don't mention that it was passed not only in the dead of night through a process that bypassed normal channels. Also the Message of Necessity was implemented to quickly free up resources in emergency times although it has been abused since day one. There is not one thing in the SAFE Act that makes us any safer and by Cuomos's own words would have done nothing to prevent the tragedy in Newtown or any other place for that matter. The assault weapon aspect is a cosmetic ban that was able to be circumvented by the time it took effect. Less than 4% of the estimated number of these weapons were registered by NYSP figures that took a court battle to get. Immediately after the law took affect 3 people had their weapons confiscated for mental health reasons. NYS did not expect these individuals to lawyer up and it was revealed that someone in the NYSP had violated HIPAA regulations for the information. The charges were dropped the firearms were returned and several in Cuomo's administration had egg on their face. The ammunition aspect was nothing more than a very poorly veiled backdoor form of confiscation in that if I can't take the weapons then render them useless by denying ammunition. Please, the SAFE Act was nothing more than a political ploy to get Cuomo in the running for This years Presidential or VP nomination. It has nothing to do with keeping anyone safe and everything to do with extending power.

  • Ex New Yorker and Loving It!!!!!!!!!!! - 3 years ago

    Liberty minded people should leave New York ASAP. Take your assets, your skills and your jobs and move to a state that respects the rights of law abiding citizens. If you are an employer, relocate your company to a free state and give your employees the opportunity to move with their job. Leave New York to the progressives so they can pay for all the entitlement programs and benefits for government workers. I was a born and bred New Yorker that left and love it!! Once you experience the freedom that most of the rest of the country enjoys, you will kicks yourself for not moving sooner.

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/12/walter-e-williams/peaceful-secession/

  • Tony Cutolo - 3 years ago

    Are u in favor of banning ARs? Contemplate this. A simple 12 ga shotgun can send 72 30 caliber pellets down range without reloading. That is more than 2 "hi capacity" magazines of lowly 22 caliber projectiles of the AR plus the AR would have to stop and reload TWICE. That's 72 pellets 50% larger and heavier.

  • Mary - 3 years ago

    Thank you Gilbert for clarifying the specifics of the SAFE act.
    So much of what I am seeing on social media lately regarding gun control is not based on the real facts but on twisted opinions and NRA propaganda.
    It is refreshing to read a knowledgeable and educated post.

  • Mike Hunt - 3 years ago

    NY was never SAFEr when they rammed this legislation in. It wasn't voted, it was rammed in.

  • Ennion - 3 years ago

    Let Downstate keep their feel good law, NYC already has completely different ones on the books and repeal and replace this useless piece of paper.

  • You're all fucking morons - 3 years ago

    NY Safe act sucks and wouldn't have saved anybody....it was a knee jerk reaction to a horrific crime ....and you dumb fucks don't even use the proper gun terminology because you get your info from the liberal media

  • Kenn - 3 years ago

    The SAFE Act was touted as needed to reduce crime, yet it only impacted legally owned and used guns, and their owners. No criminal registered their guns, they are CRIMINALS. The idea of a gun free zone IE: You are protected by this sign" is ridiculous. Legal gun owners are not the problem and are not a threat! We saw the effects of prohibition when alcohol was banned. Drugs are banned and NYS is #1 in Heroin drug deaths. The Orlando shooter had a BOMB, which is already ILLEGAL. Get real and face the real problem, it is the shooter not what he uses as a weapon. A good guy with a gun could have made a difference, but in Florida you cannot have a gun in a bar for any reason. Touting Gun Control is the easiest answer for the liberal agenda instead of facing the real problems because the real problems are hard.

  • Evan Schwartz - 3 years ago

    re Gun Free Zones:

    (1) Is a gunfight in a crowded, dark theater or nightclub filled with running, scared people, between a mass murderer and one or more civilians untrained for such a situation likely to save lives or to kill even more innocent people? Check with almost any police department or SWAT team and they’ll tell you that more guns in such places means more injuries and deaths.

    (2) If Gun Free Zones are prone to danger and the presence of concealed weapons leads to safety, why aren’t Donald Trump and the RNC insisting upon allowing concealed weapons at their Convention in July?

  • Richard Davenport - 3 years ago

    Hell NO! We have closed the front door here now we must close the backdoor from all the stupid States and fellow citizens. Make all Semiautomatic weapons illegal to own by anyone but law enforcement and military.

  • Wanda Warren Berry - 3 years ago

    NY can be proud to have taken some rational steps to ban weaponry that has no other purpose than rapid killing of humans. Now we need to strengthen gun regulations, requiring gun manufacturers to implement every possible safety measure. This would not violate the second amendment.

  • Mary Reinertsen - 3 years ago

    Holy Cow!
    AR 15 is the weapon of choice for mass murderers. It's hard to shoot 100 people with a handgun. Most of them have time to run away. So yes, it's the idiot committing the murder but the gun is giving him the means. And of course Mr. What'is name, the murderer, was not an immigrant. And what is a terrorist nation? I'll bet Saudi Arabia got left off the list.

  • Larry - 3 years ago

    "10 bullets may be enough to take down 1 or 2 perps, but what if there are 3, 4, or more? What if I am defending myself against a pack of dogs or a bear?"

    LOLOL, when was the last this happened to you? If this is a common occurrence maybe you need a bazooka.

    "the most important part of our Second Amendment is that gun owners are the last line of defense against a tyrannical government, so you should be thanking us, not condemning us."

    Thank you so much. When that cruise missile is heading towards my house by some tyrannical gov't I'll breath a sigh of relief that you have a pistol to save me. And really, what is the more likely threat to me? A tyrannical gov't coming to kill me or some gun nut in a Walmart with diagnosed bipolar disorder?

    Guns for sport, eh ok, rifles for hunting, sure. The rest of the 90% of you are 15 yr old boys who never grew up from playing cops n robbers and think you're tough guys. Has nothing to do with home security. You think guns super cool dude! and just don't admit thats all it is.

  • Evan Schwartz - 3 years ago

    Seriously, do you really think that the easy availability of guns is unrelated to the number of gun homicides in the United States?

    Gun homicides are a common cause of death in the US, killing about as many people as car crashes (not counting van, truck, motorcycle or bus accidents).

    This level of violence makes the United States an extreme outlier when measured against the experience of other advanced countries.

    Around the world, those countries have substantially lower rates of deaths from gun homicide. In Germany, being murdered with a gun is as uncommon as being killed by a falling object in the United States. About two people out of every million are killed in a gun homicide. Gun homicides are just as rare in several other European countries, including the Netherlands and Austria. In the United States, two per million is roughly the death rate for hypothermia or plane crashes.

    In Poland and England, only about one out of every million people die in gun homicides each year — about as often as an American dies in an agricultural accident or falling from a ladder. In Japan, where gun homicides are even rarer, the likelihood of dying this way is about the same as an American’s chance of being killed by lightning — roughly one in 10 million.

    In the United States, the death rate from gun homicides is about 31 per million people — the equivalent of 27 people shot dead every day of the year.

  • Pamela Donahue - 3 years ago

    Absolutely NOT. I love NY for voting the SAFE Act in. Nothing like feeling safe in your home state. These days I am afraid to travel to other stupider states that do not have as much common sense as New Yorkers do. I would love it if we also banned assault rifles and hand guns as well.

  • BOB - 3 years ago

    if you people have nothing better to do get a job

  • Holy Cow - 3 years ago

    I see a couple of cry baby liberals are blaming guns for the violence. When will the moron liberals, wake up, probably never, its NOT the guns, its the idiot holding them. The cry should be NOT gun control but immigration control and if you travel to a terrorist country, better make plans on staying there, the US will revoke your passport.
    Terrorist love "gun-free zone", if those 5 words have to be explained to you, then you are stupid.

  • patricia vigorita - 3 years ago

    something HAS to be done now to get guns off the streets!!!

  • William G Gonzalez - 3 years ago

    The Gun industry, unfortunately, was endorsed by our U.S. Congress back in 2014. As a result, tragedies are happening in America, and nobody is safe. Therefore, Congress have to agree, on working together to stop the deadly money making monster called NRA!

  • Alan - 3 years ago

    Gun lovers and owners are just plain idiots. Look at Australia, look at Israel. Banning guns works. But nobody here is remotely talking abt banning them.. Just assault rifles and high caliber mags and maybe having a list that prevents known terrorists from purchasing one? Is that too much to comprehend in your little pea brains? And electing Drumpf would make everyone's life worse. Wake the f up.

  • Rafeh - 3 years ago

    holy shit, you people are crazy.

  • I LOVE NY - 3 years ago

    THE SAFE ACT MAKES IT ILLEGAL TO TO OWN A GUN WITH MORE THAN 10 SHOTS.
    THE DEMS. FROM NYC AND THE GOVERNOR SAY IT HAS NO PURPOSE.
    THE SPEED LIMIT IN NY IS 65 MPH BUT I CAN BUY A CAR THAT WILL DO 200MPH.
    ANY CAR THAT WILL DO OVER 65MPH SHOULD BE MADE ILLEGAL GOING BY WHAT
    THESE PEOPLE SAY. REMEMBER SPEED KILLS.

  • Ralph Pettorossi - 3 years ago

    ISIS attacked Paris, Hollande bombed ISIS. ISIS attacked Russia, Putin bobmed ISIS. ISIS attacks Orlando, Obama blames guns.

  • MK - 3 years ago

    'When Guns Are Outlawed, Only the Outlaws Will Have Guns'

  • Bill - 3 years ago

    Every single mass shooting has happened in a "Gun Free Zone". Ever wonder why? One person with a concealed gun could have prevented dozens of deaths in that nightclub. One person in Santa Barbara could have stopped those shooters. One person in the movie theater trained to use, and carrying, a firearm could have saved lives. The press NEVER reports on the times a citizen armed with a legal weapon stops a criminal from committing atrocities, yet it happens all the time.

  • Mike - 3 years ago

    Take all the guns away; humans will still figure out ways to kill each other, and most likely those bent on terror will ratchet up their weapon of choice to something even worse. Terrorists will not simply say "huh, guns are not allowed anymore, I guess I'll just go home and play xBox instead".

    I don't own any guns but I think the idea of further restrictions or elimination of 2nd amendment rights, is naive and will end up solving nothing. Both the recent shootings (CA and FL), the authorities had intel on the perps and did not act in time. That sounds like part of the problem, to me.

  • Sal - 3 years ago

    There is ZERO evidence that any gun law stopped a mentally ill person or motivated terrorist from killing anyone with a gun. Gun free zones simply give anyone willing to cause mayhem an area of least resistance. More crimanls are stopped by legal gun owners. Maybe if a citizen in that club (a business that did not allow firearms by those legally armed) had been allowed to be armed, the attack would have been thwarted before the police arrived after so many lives were taken by this ISIS terrorist.

  • John Taylor - 3 years ago

    I am standing with Sandor Clegane !

  • A. Cole - 3 years ago

    uh, Gilbert, the word is bullet - not billet. Accidental shootings are the result of carelessness, like pool drownings, car accidents, etc. You don't punish an entire country because one person or even 1,000 people were careless with a product that can be lethal if not used according to its instructions.

    And who are you to tell me how many bullets I'm allowed to have in my gun(s)? 10 bullets may be enough to take down 1 or 2 perps, but what if there are 3, 4, or more? What if I am defending myself against a pack of dogs or a bear? And since when do criminals obey the law? They're going to get the most powerful weapons they can if their intention is to kill you and your family. Don't you want to protect your family? Look your love ones square in the eyes and tell them you don't love them enough to protect them by every means possible. If you can do that, then you're less than a man.

    But the most important part of our Second Amendment is that gun owners are the last line of defense against a tyrannical government, so you should be thanking us, not condemning us.

  • Joan - 3 years ago

    TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT!!! No Muslims allowed in country! No more ridiculous gun laws. Crime control, not gun control.

  • doug - 3 years ago

    It's all about greed. The gun manufacturers fund the NRA. The NRA spreads fear and phony patriotism and nonsense 2nd amendment rhetoric and the gun sellers profit. This country is the laughing stock to the rest of civilization. The USA is number #1??? Far from it, unless you count murder.

  • Ken - 3 years ago

    I have a REPEAL THE SAFE ACT SIGN in front of my house and it will BE THERE FOREVER until this unjust law dreamed up by CHIEF CROOK CUOMO AND HIS DEM. COHORTS WIND UP IN JAIL WITH SILVER and the safe act that ales it safe only for criminals and burdens honest gun owners is repealed!!!

  • Art - 3 years ago

    Gee, how about the man who was stabbed (and was KILLED) at Shop Rite the other day? Truly tragic, and obviously since this monster used a knife we should have a "common sense" conversation on controlling who gets knives. Apparently it's only about the weapon of choice and not the disturbed individual carrying out the murder....

  • Mike L. - 3 years ago

    For all of you "constitutional scholars" who think because the word militia is in the second amendment and because the amendment was written in 1791 it cannot possibly apply to today's world, please consider the first amendment.

    Was there radio in 1791? Television? Internet? Opponents of the second amendment try to find any erroneous loophole they can in order to push their agenda of disarming the American public. Criminals and especially terrorists don't (and never will) follow gun control laws. To try to argue otherwise is an exercise in semantics.

    To take a situation such as RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM and pivot to the trite "let's write more gun control laws" argument simply because this terrorist used guns is truly sickening. These monsters are butchering gay people and Christians all over the Middle East, they get into our country, and you want to disarm the public? America would become a nation of sitting ducks.

    If we have more gun control in this country, more people will die.

  • Jim - 3 years ago

    Gilbert you're right it does say regulate not confiscate under the current law the safe act New York confiscates your AR15 when you pass a way your family does not get to keep your gun

  • Gilbert Hetherwick - 3 years ago

    See above comment.... Your web site doesn't work very well.

  • Gilbert Hetherwick - 3 years ago

    It's pretty obvious that most of the people voting to repeal the "Safe Act" would vote to repeal ANY attempt at ANY gun regulations and probably don't have any idea of the actual provisions within the New York Safe Act. It primarily limits the number of billets in a magazine to ten rounds. Plenty enough for self defense but not enough to take out a school full of children. Originally the law wanted 7 rounds but a judicial decision in 2013 changed it to 10 for some unexplainable reason that was probably political in nature. Before the law the limitation was 30 rounds. The law also required the registration of ammunition purchases but this part of the law has never been enacted due to an excuse of the physical complexity of doing so. The law also requires the registration of the kind of assault weapons the continue to be used in America's on going parade of massive carnage in our schools.... Movie theaters.... Places of worship.... And now nightclubs. The law also greatly increases the penalties for shooting our policemen. And it requires that stolen weapons be reported within 24 hours. It also requires back ground checks on all sales other than those between family members... And also requires guns to be locked up.... Which could help the current horrific epidemic of "toddler shootings". And there are also major provisions for removing guns from people with dangerous mental problems.. All of these provvisions make TOTAL sense and are only being fought on the usual ridiculous excuse of it being a "slippery slope". The second amendment is simple... "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The word REGULATED is right in the amendment and it all was about the fact that there was no standing national army at the time.... AND the citizens were required to register the guns with the government formed by our "founding fathers" . They relied on local militias for national protection and they wanted an inventory of where local militias were located and their level of firepower. It has NOTHING to do with the BS happening today. But hey.... How about protecting our THIRD AMENDMENT rights..... You know... The one about not being forced to "quarter troops" in our homes. Doesn't make much sense today does it? Neither does the SECOND amendment. God bless the Governor for being the only one with the guts to pull this off at a time of extreme need.

Leave a Comment

0/4000 chars


Submit Comment