“After a brutal, bullet-riddled summer in New York City, not to mention a soaring murder rate in Chicago and mass shootings in Colorado and Wisconsin, 8 percent of New Yorkers maintain that firearm laws should actually be less strict, while 28 percent believe they should stay the same, according to a new Quinnipiac poll. That leaves more than 60 percent saying, you know what, let’s go ahead and make those laws stronger, but a full 26 percent of those polled oppose a proposed bill limiting handgun purchases to just one per month. Because who knows when you are going to need to grab a few at once. Just in case.” – Joe Coscarelli

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

24 COMMENTS

  2. This reminds me of the Boondock saints…Ill just leave this here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfXuNJxWw88

    In all seriousness though, how many shootings are perpetuated by a criminal with multiple guns in a single crime? Most of the criminal on criminal violence is more than likely single weapon events. Side note, I bought 3 guns last month. Glad I live in a free state.

  3. The comments about guns and crime, following the article from the above linked NY Mag, are stereotypical NYC super-liberal ignorance.

  4. One gun per month? Perfect! Now I have some time to get deadly proficient with the one I just bought before that evil temptress comes and takes my money again!

  5. Now there is a guy with the “caught in the headlights” look. Is this the author’s official photo???

  6. As David Codrea points out, how many New Yorkers would want to ban dihydrogen monoxide if their master told them it kills children?

    • Such a dangerous chemical! Its all the rage with kids these days, and its use skyrocketed in the past couple months.

      • It’s used as an industrial solvent and is released by factories into our rivers and air every day. A few liters of the stuff is all that’s required to kill a person. Yup, we’d better ban it.

    • LOL I wish someone had done that survey at the DNC convention!
      Think about the children for gods sakes!!!!
      It is completely unregulated, and it is everywhere, being used by businesses all over the country!!!

  7. Hey, we took a survey! We’re not going to tell you who we sampled or break it down by any kind of demographics, but we took a survey! So you know it’s legit!

    While there’s no shortage of blithering idiots in NYC, my experience has shown it to be more like:

    50-odd percent are lunatics who want to ban anything that looks like a gun.
    25-some percent hate them and want, at the very least, NYS-level laws.
    25-some percent really hated them and moved to PA.

  8. The only reasons I’m not inconvienienced more by C.A.’s asinine one handgun a month rule are #1. Income. #2. C.A.’s equally asinine “approved handgun list” which keeps me from buying all those assault type Colt and S&W double action revolvers from out of state.

    • All right Drew no reason to rub our faces into the idiocy of CA law lol
      I can honestly say this, that after a lifetime, minus a decade in California, I am ready to move. The people I meet that not only think that no one needs to own a gun or anything deadly for that matter, plus the out right socialistic, budget be damned behavior of our local officials has pretty much broken the camels back as it were.

      So no the fact that folks are all over the board in regard to this pol is not surprising in the least.
      What I do want to know is this:
      What questions exactly did they ask these people? As we all know how you ask something can get what ever response you think you want, depending on who is paying for it. So to that end don’t believe the hype!

    • Add in the ten day waiting period. Three strikes and you’re out? All of these laws are illogical. The only potential criminal who could be deterred from committing a crime of passion is the first time buyer. After that first gun, the waiting period is useless. And one gun a month? If all you want to do is off somebody or knock over the local corner convenience store, one gun is plenty. Can anyone explain what it is that these laws are supposed to accomplish? I already know that there is plenty of evidence that they acomplish nothing…..

      • As a fellow Kalifornian the only thing I can see these laws doing is to discourage people from exercising their rights. I’m still an American even though I live in Ka. and I hope to see a time when my rights are respected and protected nationwide.
        Until then I will suffer. But not in silence.

  9. Proposed survey:

    Do you know what you’re talking about?

    A. Yes
    B. No
    C. Insufficient information to answer the question
    D. No opinion

    C and D would win by a huge margin.

  10. I genuinely don’t understand why homicide rates in NYC and Chicago are always used to justify stricter gun restrictions. If those areas, which already have stricter restrictions in place than most of the country, are seeing levels of violent crime significantly higher than those areas with fewer restrictions, simple logic would seem to dictate that gun restrictions are not a viable method for reducing violence.

    I’m not using that as a rhetorical device, nor am I trying to be snide. I am genuinely at a loss to explain the logic at work, but the argument is made frequently enough that there must be SOME rationale for it, however flawed. Maybe NYC and Chicago natives don’t understand the huge discrepancies between their gun laws and those in the rest of the country?

    • Steve this is pretty simple.
      Rather than own up to the fact they have a crime problem, i.e. drugs, prostitution, gangs, it is so much easier to simply blame guns. Forget the statistics, like the UK still has a big crime problem. Sure not as much gun violence, but they still have a problem.
      It is much easier to blame an inanimate object for your ills than to realize that unemployment is at an all time high, people are turning to crime, and gangs running drugs, prostitution, gambling and the like are not being dealt with. That would take real work..

      • Well, only one of those three things you listed has any justification for being illegal (gangs, since their only purpose is to organize people to commit crimes). There’s no justification for banning prostitution or drug use among adults, just as there was no justification for banning alcohol in the 20’s.

  11. If I were a legislator, the first question I would ask is this; Is there any evidence whatsoever to suggest that limiting hand-gun purchases would have stopped any of the recent crimes?
    … I will go out on a limb and say, NO.

Comments are closed.