Over the past four decades, most American states chose to let everyday citizens carry concealed weapons. Indeed, about half of states no longer even require a permit to pack heat.
New York took a different path — but is being dragged into a more lenient gun-carrying regime by the courts. Exactly how far it will be dragged is an open question. But there are two reasons for New Yorkers not to panic.
First, while parts of the state’s strict new law will likely be struck down, New York will retain ample discretion to make permits hard to get — including fees, training requirements and restrictions on where guns may be carried. And second, even in states that liberalized their gun-carrying laws with gusto, the effects on crime are small enough that, despite decades of research, they remain hard to measure reliably. …
New York doesn’t have to love being forced into a right-to-carry policy, but there is also no reason to panic. When the court struggles reach their end, the state will retain plenty of discretion to make legal gun-carrying difficult — even for those with clean records.
— Robert VerBruggen in The Sky Won’t Fall if More New Yorkers Carry Guns
Lol people think we are not coming after fees and training requirements re disenfranchisement of poor and minorities via poll tax.
I feel like a lot of this is just ego and retribution for losing in court. It’s a political tantrum.
@Dude
√
That would be NY especially NYC and the political class. Also serves to try bluffing their way out of investigation/sentencing sometimes to the point of changing the definition of corruption and getting a new trial.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/poll-workers-voting-sites-targets-extremists-nypd-warns/story?id=92152853
I’ll bet these are the same ‘extremists’ who attacked Jussie Smollett.
They’re already putting out excuses for losing.
Or an excuse to declare an emergency and postpone the midterms. 🤔
On the NY election tip…..
https://youtu.be/cX4pTFImIqY
So when they lose all their cries foul will be backed up by MSM and alphabet agencies stating interference was real. Can’t be an “election denier” conspiracy nut when the power structure supports your assertion. Just ask Stacy Abrams.
“I’ll bet these are the same ‘extremists’ who attacked Jussie Smollett.”
it is. no joke.
Another compromiser trying to justify his compromising attitude. It’s really wearisome. I have no patience with people like him.
Attention Shoppers…You are safe and secure in a Gun Free Zone…Not.
From the article:
The NYPD is not aware of any credible threats to polling sites in New York City or any candidates.
I guess that doesn’t include the Rep candidate for Governer, who was literally attacked on stage (granted, he wasn’t attacked in NYC).
Yep Lee Zeldin and every republican is in danger. Not to mention anyone not rich & connected…
Imagine an 84-Year-old harmless pro-choice volunteer being shot while walking back to her car after being asked to leave. Now imagine there’s a clear cut case of political animosity due to the homeowner’s social media and the fact that she was verbally harassing the victim as she was trying to leave. Then they shoot her. That’d be crazy wouldn’t it? I imagine the MSM would be all over it…unless the victim was a pro-life conservative. It’s funny how 90% of the political violence goes in one direction while the MSM paints the opposite picture.
They’re only trying to get a maximum of 4 years in prison for that by the way. The prosecutor there must be a joke. The shot barely missed her spine.
“It’s funny how 90% of the political violence goes in one direction while the MSM paints the opposite picture.”
understand – to them, that IS the picture, and anyone who says otherwise or any fact that shows otherwise is a wicked lie. seriously.
Don’t forget that freak in Kentucky, was it Louisville? Liberal kid running for office stopped by his opponent’s office, and started shooting.
“Liberal kid running for office stopped by his opponent’s office, and started shooting.”
that is their dream state. that is their ideal world. that is the society they wish to achieve.
the kid, being young and impatient, just jumped the gun.
Relax new yorkers, we will make sure you can’t defend yourself against mr red shoes. We will offer you up to being pushed onto the tracks. We will let the violent thugs go and make sure you are defenseless. Why would anyone want to live in such an open septic tank? Patton Oswalt fuck nra, no fuck you. Do you stand to piss?
Used to be for wealth glitz and glamour. Now to dodge a thug with a hammer.
Yep. And Sean Hannity proves he is a moron by continuing to live/broadcast from the sewer.
neiowa…Hannity has contracts requiring him to stay put for awhile longer so call him and apologize for calling him a moron you moron.
That huge sign saying “GUN FREE ZONE” will solve all of New York’s crime problems.
Criminals will take one look at that sign and either turn back the way they came, or turn themselves over to police for arrest, holding out their hands and begging to be handcuffed.
But there’s still the problem of knife murders, samurai swords in the subways, and the growing problem of criminals pushing people onto the subway tracks to be killed by trains.
Simple solution: change the wording of that big sigh from “GUN FREE ZONE” to “MURDER FREE ZONE.” That will stop knife murders, prevent criminals from pushing people onto the subway tracks, and even stop hit-and-run drivers! I’m amazed that Dem politicians haven’t yet figured out that they can stop all murders with signs saying “MURDER FREE ZONE.”
And after that, they can put up signs saying “CRIME FREE ZONE,” and all crimes will stop, even shoplifting and jaywalking.
/sarc
Funny enough we had two sword attacks within a block of my office to only one machete attack (down from 3 last year yay) this year so far. So ban samurai type swords next I guess.
that is a lot of copium or very patronizing.
These people won’t get it until they’re made to understand.
no, you don’t understand. they fully understand what they say, and they mean it.
“Some of the requirements are high but legally sound, such as 18 hours of “live-fire” firearm training.”
BS
that’s more instruction time than a cop on the beat has to have before he can tote. ANd in NYC their track record is pretty miserable. Anyone else remember the time, in NYC, where some dirtbag had shot someone way up in a highrise office building, as he left the building on to the sidewalk he was singled out and persued. Several of NYC’s blindest fired at him as he fled. NINE innocent bystanders were hit by bullets fired by the coppers. I think they did hit their target eventualy but don’t remember that he was killed.
“18 hours of ‘live-fire’ firearm training.”
the intent is to make it difficult for working class people to find the time off and pay the ammunition costs.
me, personally, I’d require membership in a formal state militia. dress it up as a “gun club”.
Does it say how many actual rounds have to be fired?
“the effects on crime are small enough that, despite decades of research, they remain hard to measure reliably.”
Every criminal who finds his eternal hole in the ground is a victory for good, and a victory for justice. Every “victim” who survives contact with a criminal is the same. Bring on the bad guys.
I’m a Texan…from many generations of Texans.
Governmental lunacy restricting a citizen’s right to bear arms (even open carry in public, with a few reasonable exclusions such as court rooms and hospitals), doesn’t exist here.
MOVE TO TEXAS!!! We welcome ALL!!! (who legally come here).
Gets harder every year not to. Or anywhere not commie inclined really.
JFC, where did you learn math? 25 states isn’t about half it IS half.
He was using Dopey Joey;s state total of fifty seven. Thus 25 IS “about half”
“And second, even in states that liberalized their gun-carrying laws with gusto, the effects on crime are small enough that, despite decades of research, they remain hard to measure reliably.”
Hmmm… not so.
With technically weak research it remains hard to measure and supports the hypothesis that there is little to no effect on crime. However, with strong research the hypothesis that there is little to no effect on crime is trashed and there is a measurable effect on crime with crime rates going down in areas with with widespread liberalized gun-carrying laws and practice for the law abiding.
100% of the weak research (even that debunked stuff dacian posts a lot) on the subject fail to establish essential conditions which are: valid measure of gun levels (100% of the weak studies use proxies that are known to be invalid or have never been validated) – there is no control for confounders or they use arbitrarily chosen sets of variables – they overall ignore the two-way relationship between gun levels and violence rates – they use smaller sample sizes, sample bias, and useless and needlessly high levels of aggregation. All these directly affect if the essential conditions of causality for a valid study are likely to have been met. This is the hallmark of an anti-gun/gun-control study, these defects in the study, and all of them have these defects. Therefore these weak research studies end up supporting their original hypothesis which is why when you see their studies and look at it closely it always appears to have been tailored to support their beginning hypothesis. Because this is ignored or missing in this weak research the data and evidence does not drive the outcome of the research. This is not science, its garbage, or as RAND put it upon examining various studies they are “Junk Science” (https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/junk-science-rand-finds-only-123-of-27900-gun-control-studies-meet-rigorous-scientific-standards/).
Its a lot of words with seemingly ‘valid’ results and numbers and data, and to the easily swayed and gullible and ignorant they appear sound. But in reality they are not and missing some very important stuff absolutely required in ALL ‘science’ based studies no matter if its guns or physics or medicine or any other. Plus some of them even intentionally use bogus data to begin with and know its bogus (for example, https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/junk-science-johns-hopkins-uses-bogus-data-to-claim-constitutional-carry-results-in-more-police-shootings/)
Strong research includes these which allows the evidence and data to determine the outcome of the study. In those its shown that there is a measurable effect on crime with crime rates going down in areas with widespread liberalized gun-carrying laws and practice for the law abiding.
Guess which research the anti-gun crowd prefers and touts the most.
The weak research junk science is further propagated by anti-gun in a circular logic fashion by citing the junk science in further junk science to support their own junk science research studies.
correction:
“Strong research includes these which allows the evidence and data to determine the outcome of the study.”
should have been
Strong research includes these factors missing from the weak research which allows the evidence and data to determine the outcome of the study.
“And second, even in states that liberalized their gun-carrying laws with gusto, the effects on crime are small enough that, despite decades of research, they remain hard to measure reliably.”
he means hard to view/twist/redefine in his favor.
Well I’m a felon so I cant have a gunm anyway.
Har har har.
Yeppers ain’t nothing stops a criminal like a law. You wouldn’t believe how many armed robbers obey the law. Why just the other day a guy had a gunm pointed at me wanting all my money. Luckily I was close enough to jump behind the gunm free zone sign. That put a stop to that robbery right fast.
We need more laws.
Pretty much everyone who commented on this article missed the entire point of New York’s most recent attempts to stop law-abiding citizens from carrying firearms. The objective/incentive is twofold:
1) New York assumes that law-abiding citizens are Bubbas who will start blasting at people for slights such as “taking their parking space” (which is laughable on several levels–not the least of which is the fact that very people drive their own cars in New York City anyway). And to top it off: those Bubbas will spray bullets everywhere injuring/killing several bystanders. Thus, if New York reduces the number of law-abiding Bubbas carrying firearms, they will be saving lives!
2) Admitting that violent crime exists is icky. Carrying firearms for self-defense is a whole additional level of icky. It is far more admirable to deny that violent crime exists and flat-out commendable to NOT carry firearms for self-defense. Thus, anything that New York can do to reduce the number of law-abiding citizens who carry firearms is desirable.
And yes, in the minds of Progressive True Believers, it really is superior when a violent scumbag is able to rape and strangle an unarmed woman rather than have her armed and prevent both her rape and her murder.
Comments are closed.