True Story Dusty- Good point

Gun deaths per 100,000: Florida -- 12.5. Massachusetts -- 3.1 (lowest in the nation). Source, http://www.vpc.org/fadeathchart12.htm

These "studies" EXCLUDE MURDER BY GUN. They only count gun "injuries" from guns in the home. It's much more palatable if we exclude the Humboldt Avenues of the world.

Errr, no., Who Me. The CDC compiles stats on all deaths, by all causes, as well as injuries (which are not represented in the referenced chart).

That was a valiant try at misdirection, though.

@BAV - What are the overall murder and assault rates? Seems to me dead from a stabbing is just as dead as dead from a bullet, so why are you limiting your stats to guns only?

or Chicago or Washington,.... And don't forget Feinstein’s home state of Cali.... The Gang Capital of the United States.... Maybe AFTER she disarms all the illegal gangs members who own machine gunst, than MAYBE she should consider attacking the second amendment, but until she can accomplish that she has NO RIGHT to ask law abiding citizens to disarm…. OR Shall I say forcing to disarm

Steevo, does this answer your query:
CNN: Paul Waldman
A sane person might argue that the president and his family require special protection because they face threats the rest of us don't. But the NRA and many of its most fervent supporters don't see it that way. As far as they're concerned, all of us are just as threatened as the person in the Oval Office. The fact that you're an ordinary person and not the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth doesn't mean you haven't already been targeted by an al Qaeda death squad or a murderous drug gang, so you'd better be prepared, not just with a gun but with an entire arsenal of military-style weaponry.

Well that's Paul Waldman of CNN. I never hear or read the NRA saying each of us needs an entire arsenal of military-style weaponry. The main thrust of their commentary is that we should not allow those in government to dictate down what rights we should not have under the 2nd Amendment.

Bk-this answers nothing. The guards are part of the school, not added for the protection of the presidents children. The secret service in in charge of that. Also, I assume the argument being made for stricter gun control is "the new reality" that all our children are under the threat of a mass murder.

Steevo, the Supreme Court has already ruled twice in the past several years that the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee an absolute right to carry any type of firearm. Both decisions were hailed by the NRA by their strong support of the Second Amendment, but left intact the states' authority to regulate the type of arms. DC vs. Heller is most clear on that point.

Steevo, you can't use the school where Obama's kids go to school for the simple reason that they are the President's kids, not to mention the mere presence of the Secret Service!

The president's children are possible high-profile targets. All presidential children aere given armed Secret Service protection.

I know a guy that has worked the detail, Patrick has an armed State Trooper parked outside his residence, on the Commonwealth's dime, of course.

As another said, "How does the Sandy Hook massacre demonstrate the need for gun controls that have nothing to do with it? It’s like they’re just cynically exploiting tragedy to advance a pre-existing agenda."

Thats is exactly what they are doing Steevo, they are pulling on the heart strings of Americans so they give up the civil liberty, same thing Bush did during 9/11...

Liberals turn tragedies into political opportunities.

MA law says that all guns (even muzzle loaders) have to be stored either with trigger locks or in a locked safe.

As a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment as it was intended at the time it was written (as opposed to the more progressive interpretation driven by people like Jefferies), I don't have a problem with mandating safe storage. It is very easy and inexpensive to secure a weapon with a trigger lock or in a safe and still be able to get to it in seconds if needed. I feel that it is irresponsible for any gun owner who has young children or troubled adults in the house not to find a way to keep their weapons out of their reach.

As for the rest of the knee jerk reactions to the CT violence, its just ignorant liberals dancing on the graves of the victims.

Mike, there are 7 round clips for guns. Mass already has some of the most restrictive rights in the nation. This is the Gov just trying to look busy and distract us as he readies to increase the income tax, and dont worry, there will be compromise, they will get rid of his idea to lower the sales tax.

Coldwater, AFAIK, 7-round magazines are not very common outside of .45-cal 1911 pistols, mostly because the smaller calibers can fit more rounds in the magazine.

Dunno whether there will be a huge backlash.

The NY State law was so hastily put together and badly written, it banned the police from carrying their standard issue side arms because the clips were too big! Also if a shooting occurred on school grounds, they would have to leave their guns in the car before going in the school! Brilliant! More proof knee jerk legislation isn't the way to govern. But the legislatures FELT good about themselves! Now they waste time adding amendments to a bill passed a couple of weeks ago. And we wonder why things never get done in government?

I agree with you. But many times, the people that need it most won't seek treatment. I really doubt the Newtown killers mom would have him in treatment, she kept guns in the house..she didn't see a reason not to. This is the bigger problem. Knowing who really needs mental health services.

Everyone who owns a gun legally in Ma. has to be certified and licensed and as with cars, you need to renew this license periodically. I will agree with the need for better mental health care, especially for children.

So you can go live in fear of your neighbor and hide under the bed or you can wrap your scared head around the fact that allowing responsible sane people to have easier access to the same tools the crazies have levels the field and puts the power back in the hands of the good guys. The naivety is the notion that with millions of guns already out there, disarming the good people (which is all this new flurry of legislation and most of the already existing legislation will accomplish) will do anything to increase the safety of the general public from criminals.

So when someone breaks into your house and you call the police what do you think they're bringing to protect you and your family? A manic wand perhaps? This is the real world where you call a person with a gun and hope they get there in time. I on the other hand would rather eliminate the hope in this equation.

Or a magic wand..... Whatever is more handy!

You should consider signing up for a gun safety course. Maybe then you won't be so afraid of guns. Just a thought.

I agree!

Like most of the hot topic items that are debated there is not a black and white answer to this issue. Are legal gun owners causing the majority of problems and fear with guns today? Enforce the existing laws and make them harder to wiggle out of!

At the same time, would it be a bad thing to find ways to ensure that guns that are purchased legally don't end up in functioning the hands of bad people? There is a responsibility of gun owners to protect their wepons and keep them safe out of reach of bad people.

I personally have no need for a gun, specifically one that holds 30 rounds or an "Assault" style weapon but I don't want to restrict someone who wants one or feels they need to legally own one. I don't know what you would need that for but I'm sure there a people who can roll them out.

I'd prefer common sense from both sides of the issue to lock themselves in a room, work together and come up with a sensible plan rather than political knee jerk reactions for political purposes.

That puzzled me too. Did he also mean high-powered hunting rounds, like .300 Win Mag, or .30-06?

I thought the emphasis was supposed to be on armor-piercing rounds like the 7.62 M61 (which isn't very common at all...
)

Please define 'high-powered rounds of ammunition'. This seems like a way to ban the legal use of 'Assault Weapons'. BTW - 'Assault Weapons' kill fewer people each year than blunt objects.

Tyler, since you're in agreement with the bill, can you define exactly what a "high-powered round" is and what would be banned? (Tip: You can't.) All common hunting rounds (.300 Win, .308, .30-06, etc) have much more power than the .223 rounds used in most AR-15s. That's why they're used for hunting. Unfortunately, this law may make it illegal for a Mass resident who hunts in neighboring states to keep a rifle at home. That's just silly.

The other measures are common sense and, I agree, should have been implemented a long time ago.

But it's fairly obvious from your post that you're missing the biggest point of the legislation, given the extreme focus on big, bad, scary Evil Black Rifles.

I won't tell you what it is. You'll have to do some research and figure it out yourself. :)

Tyler, do you eat your Liberal Pablum Puke with a fork or a spoon?

Just curious.

Anyway, your ignorance is showing, again. The NRA is a non-partisian organization. They have one issue and one issue only, 2nd Amendment Rights. They back and support any candidate, either right or left, who agrees that Americans have unalienable 2nd Amendment right. Harry Reid, D Nevada, has an A+ rating from the NRA for example....and he's hardly a right wing wing nut.

And while your gulping down that Liberal Pablum Puke you may want to wear a bib...otherwise....it's all over your face.

The problem is that our Governor doesn't have a good record of being able to track anyone. I doubt he really cares to figure it out either. His Agency lost track of 48,000 families on the EBT program to the toon of millions of wasted tax payer money. What makes you feel that he can put a program in place to track law abiding gun owners, let alone criminals.

How many law abiding gun owners are causing problems? What new law will now make the criminals think twice of killing someone? The ones in place don't seem to stop them. The death penalty??? Who would go for that?

Gene, the ACLU is likely way down the list of reasons that mandatory minimums for unlawful possession are always sought. First would be the desire of judges and prosecutors to have a measure of discretion.

A gang member carrying a Glock is different from a battered spouse carrying one for protection -- but the mandatory sentencing treats both crimes as the same.

Sam, some people might say "Yikes...glad he didn't have multiple 10-round magazines."

Mike,

Have you ever fired a semi automatic handgun? Do you know how quickly a properly trained operator can change magazines? Any idea how many 'large' capacity magazines are in the wild already and would not be subject to new laws?

Limiting the number of rounds in a magazine will have no impact at all.

Yes, Old Townie, I've fired a variety of semi-auto firearms, both long guns and handguns in various calibers and configurations. I actually like the modular AR format, and want to pick up one in .308 once the craze dies down.

"Properly trained operators" aren't the focus of this legislation, it's the untrained, unbalanced individual who is looking to go out in a sick blaze of infamy. All those large capacity mags already in circulation would be prohibited under this proposal, including all pre-ban 20- and 30-round mags.

"All those large capacity mags already in circulation would be prohibited under this proposal, including all pre-ban 20- and 30-round mags."

Translation: Those law abiding citizens who LEGALLY own large capacity mags including pre-banned 20 and 30 round mags will, through no action or fault of their own, will be criminals. If you currently legally own a .22 cal tube fed Marlin now, you'll be a criminal once Patrick gets his way.

This is the first real step towards confiscation. I won't speak for anybody here or even tip my hand on how I would react, but rest assured, if confiscation starts, that will be the tipping point for all freedom loving people to start really fighting back. I hope Patrick is ready to take responsibility for the bloodshed that will follow.

Rich, if you read the proposed act against the existing law, you'll see that it doesn't remove the following language: "The term “large capacity feeding device” shall not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with,.22 caliber ammunition."

As far as your other comment goes, I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I'd hope people wouldn't be insane enough to reinforce what anti-gun advocates have been saying all along. Your comment paints you in that unfavorable light, as a bitter individual desperately clinging to your extra three rounds in your magazine.

No. I'm a nervous individual watching the only thing that keeps us truly free people, the right of self defense, being eroded away and people like you who supposedly support 2nd amendment rights are being just fine watching our freedoms disappear. Without the 2nd amendment, the rest of the Bill of Rights cannot stand and I believe you know that. I find your stance on this matter puzzling. Unless of course, you are a member of the police force which would explain ones desire to have a population of defenseless people. If more people had access to firearms the crime rate falls. Its proven out all over the country and other parts of the world. Compare Texas gun crime stats with Illinois gun crime stats and its obvious. Low crime means less need for police which means smaller government.

Rich, since you asked: For the last year that data was available, 2009, Texas firearm death rate was 11.1 per 100,000; Illinois was 8.1.

What about the Chicago murder epidemic, you ask? There were only 47 more homicides in 2012, so the rates are likely very close.

So, with that put to bed...let me address your other point. I'm not a LEO. I'm a regular Joe who likes lots of things, shooting sports among them, and who doesn't go to bed every night worried about the supposed Forces of Darkness over the next hill.

Nothing proposed here or at the federal level will remove our right to bear arms. Are some rules tightened? You bet. I'm not happy about the 7-round mag limit, but I understand why it was done. What keeps us free in 2013 isn't the same as what presumably kept us free in 1789. We're a big grown-up country with a robust government that has withstood a civil war, a half-dozen regional insurrections and a couple of political and economic corruption scandals that reached into the White House itself.

Do you think that your home mini-armory plays more of a part in upholding freedom than our system itself? My money's on democracy. :)

Please Mike...on the one hand you say they are not taking away our rights while on the other you state you wish to buy the very rifle they want to ban(in a much "higher powered" cartridge). You are the same Mike I assume. And tell me, what should I do with my "MA approved" 10 round pistol if Ruger decides not to make 7 round mags? Toss it in the trash can?

Andrew, you've got the right person. Despite all the whining and hand-wringing coming from the NRA sheep, nothing in this law will prohibit you or me from buying an AR chambered in any of the common calibers. Period. Read the proposed law.

So, what will you do? If you want to stay legal, you'll exchange your 10-round mags for 7-round mags. Two large states have just moved to enact 7-round mag limits, guaranteeing a new market for manufacturers. (I doubt they'll allowed "pinned" mags made from existing 10s) If legislators are smart, they'll allow owners to swap them for a Mass. compliant one at Four Seasons or any of the other dealers.

Sam: not all multiple murders can be prevented . You know that. The aim is to lessen and make it more difficult while still allowing the gun guys to have their toys and rant now about a tyrannical government, since a .38 pistol is sufficient to defend your castle.
My question to you: what will happen when the next lunatic enters a building and kills 200 people , wounding 500 going from floor to floor?

Sam again: I'm a progressive. There have already been multiple murders with a handgun and no one has advocate for a ban on hand guns , to answer your question.

Mike, I just don't see how it's helpful to call the people you generally agree with sheep and suggest their clinging to the last 3 rounds while at the same time appeasing someone just to make them feel better. 10 rounds to 7 does nothing but create a major hassle for law abiding gun owners. Don't forget these are the same people who will ask "why do you need a milatary style assault weapon that is made just to kill people." We should try things that may actually work, not agree just so we feel better.

Andrew, I think there's a huge middle ground between anti-gun absolutists on one side and NRA-fueled absolutists on the other. I don't generally agree with either side. Somewhere in the middle ground there should be some serious discussion about what types of guns and accessories have legitimate sporting/hunting/defense uses and which don't.

There are some people who believe that all guns are bad, and that semi-auto rifles are the worst of them all, not understanding that despite the recent furor, they're rarely used in firearm homicides. On the other side are people who think that any attempt to remove high-capacity magazines from the marketplace is an abridgment of the Second Amendment. (100-round drums? Bump fire stocks? Seriously? ;) )

Most firearm homicides are committed with semi-auto handguns, but no way should anyone should support just removing them from the market because they're also used by legit, responsible gun owners. I'd rather see registration for all handguns to track those that are stolen and/or bought in bulk for distribution, or some other sensible measures (no private sales, no gun show bulk purchases, etc) before the 7-round limit.

But the 7-round limit wouldn't be a deal breaker for me because I don't carry. Don't need to. Some people do, and I understand their reasons, but I'd rather see that than a ban on ARs

Mike, if you lived on the southern boarder or maybe northern Maine you might feel a little different about a 30 round mag in your AR. The police are not minutes away for a huge portion of the country. Every new law, right or wrong, takes away a fellow citizens freedom somewhere.
Would you still run out and buy an AR if they banned pistol grips on rifles? Doubt it.

when way the last time that the public armed to the teeth prevented the republic from becoming toast?

Jon, that would have been in 1775.

"Jon, that would have been in 1775."

Exactly!!! See how well the 2nd amendment has been protecting our freedom from tyrants like Obama, Patrick and now Jefferies. I just don't understand why any American citizen would want to water it down. Even if you are afraid of inanimate objects like guns, you should take comfort in the fact that freedom and security loving people stand ready to protect you and your freedoms.

Rich, calling Obama a tyrant is like calling a paper cut a sucking chest wound.

OK Mike. Lets wait until 2016 and see how your socialist dictator wannabe ranks among recent tyrants. If he disarms law abiding people, there will be no stopping that Chicago thug.

Tyler, I've read the entire act and cross-referenced the changes against the existing statutes. There's nothing in it that defines "high-powered ammunition."

Here's the actual act: http://www.mass.gov/governor/legislationeexecorder/legislation/an-act-to-strengthen-and-enhance-firearms-laws.html

I'm not a huge fan of the seven-round limit, but I understand why it was imposed. Contrary to the furor about assault rifles, it's a measure to restrict handguns. The majority of handguns on the market (at least in Mass.) are semi-auto with a capacity of 8-10 rounds.

Interesting the seven round magazine limit is not being reported. They've been after handguns for a long time and this is a total end around. So much for them not coming after everyone's guns!

After reading it it seems they are banning all magazine feed guns made after the effective date. Am I reading this correctly?

Andrew, the legislation is limiting the magazines, not the guns themselves.

Paul, it's fairly impossible to link the two actions. None of Obama's Executive Orders are bills, which have to go through the Congressional sausage factory. The EOs don't involve new legislation, which is why they're not very powerful.

Deval Patrick's act is a proposal, similar to a bill, which goes through the Legislature. It's fairly sweeping and would fundamentally change the nature of firearms ownership in the state, which is why it will likely be amended heavily before it ever comes to a vote.

Paul: President Obama signed Executive Orders, not legislation.It is very doubtful that Boehner will even take up any new gun legislation . When you talk about gridlock in Washington, you are talking about a Republican controlled US House.

Hi Ed, it's possible for a licensed firearm owner to commit a misdemeanor while carrying and only get charged with the lesser offense.

CSC - Try not to cloud the argument with facts. Arguing that our democratically elected President is a Muslim Socialist Tree-Hugging Elitist Non-native-born Dictator who planned the whole Sandy Hook hoax just to advance his desire to take away our guns and popcorn makers is much more amusing.

Jphn, you forgot the LED lightbulbs. Obama wants them in all homes so their super-tippy-top-secret microchips can report to the underground NORAD bunker ....

I wish more people would raise the alarm about the gradual erosion of our natural right of self defense. Our government is on a slow track towards tyranny and, like the frog that allows itself to be boiled alive as the heat is gradually raised, US citizens sit back in their easy chairs listening to the MSM and, based on what they hear, think this erosion is just fine. You and many others fail to see that the MSM has devolved into nothing more than a propaganda machine for the socialist agenda that your beloved leader is pushing on your country. BTW, the big story out of the White House this morning being reported in several media outlets is that your dear leader's wife has a new hair doo. This is what passes for political reporting these days. That would make anything people like me say sound rather alarmist. You and many others fail to realize the true intent of political thugs like Obama. You take everything this chronic liar says at face value. Perhaps I am a bit of an alarmist. But on the other hand, there are many like you who behave as ignorant sheep being led to the government feeding trough with no clue as to what the future holds in store for you and generations that follow and no desire to influence it other than voting for candidates that the government parades before us.

Mark, the threshold is fairly high. Someone would need to be determined to be a danger to themselves or the public. It's not someone who's mildly depressed or seeks counseling for anxiety or other behaviors.

Here's the language in the MGL: "“Likelihood of serious harm”, (1) a substantial risk of physical harm to the person himself as manifested by evidence of, threats of, or attempts at, suicide or serious bodily harm; (2) a substantial risk of physical harm to other persons as manifested by evidence of homicidal or other violent behavior or evidence that others are placed in reasonable fear of violent behavior and serious physical harm to them; or (3) a very substantial risk of physical impairment or injury to the person himself as manifested by evidence that such person’s judgment is so affected that he is unable to protect himself in the community and that reasonable provision for his protection is not available in the community."

I'm not sure what insurance would accomplish either, unless it's a way to compel people to avoid scary black rifles by charging higher premiums. (Ironically, if rates were set by number of people killed or injured, they would be highest on handguns.)

Mark:
1. a registry ( the NRA proposed this, incidently as a distraction from focus on the guns) would involve those that have been involuntarily commited to a mental institution( high threshold); different from educators spotting deranged behavior , verbal or physical, for observation and notice to the authorities, just like teachers are required now to report bullying;
2. Gov Patrick's proposed legislation does not included any liability insurance requirements

Hi Mark,

I believe there needs to be a commitment hearing unless the police are called to intervene. I honestly havent looked too deeply at what the MGL says...

I'm a member of the Brady Campaign against handgun violence and we believe Assault Rifles should be legal, not banned.

If guns kill people then mine must be defective....Ted Nugent

So explain to me what an assault rifle is again?

David, so-called assault weapons were used in fewer than 2 percent of firearm homicides last year. Handguns were used in 72 percent.

The focus on scary black rifles is taking the focus away from where it should be: reducing the number of handguns on the street in the hands of violent people.

Does Gun Control actually reduce crime? Jimmy Carter thought so and commissioned an indepth analysis to prove it. Alas, just the opposite conclusion was reached. This is what happens when actual thought and analysis is done, instead of mindless emotion and conclusion leaping: http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/how-obamas-gun-order-will-backfire/

Most parents in Westford residents support school resource officers; the only issue is cost. School committee members have has suggested it several times over the past few years but a quick napkin calculation says eight additional resource officers like the one at WA would be about a quarter of the existing police budget. It's definitely worth considering, though, but there would be a huge furor among the "no more taxes" grumblers in town.

The whole "Obama's kids have guards, why can't your kids" is one of the more idiotic NRA-fueled memes in a long while.

Was there a point hidden somewhere in that incoherent rant, because if so, it eluded me.

Proof of that, aside from one or two anecdotes you might have heard somewhere but can't remember where, but you think it has to be pretty legit because Fox said so.

"Anecdotes", isn't that what the governor calls anything that shows the actions of the state in a less than favorable light?

Not really relevant to anything, but a funny comment anyway, Old Townie!

Errr...OK, Kevin. I guess I'll just have to trust you on this.

AQ’s power and influence have diminished noticeably over the last few years and it now operates like a “franchise,” due to internal struggle among its members. In Africa, we have the Shebab (Somali), Boko Haram (Nigeria), Ansar Dine (Algeria), the Movement to Unit the Jihad in Western Africa (Mujoa), and of course AQMI.

The problem with the VPC's stats is that they include justifiable homicides, criminal on criminal shootings (gangs,) suicides, etc. in their stats. Filter that stuff out and a very different picture emerges.

The fact is that guns are used to protect law-abiding gun owners an estimated 2.5 MILLION times a year, far more than the number of times they're used in crimes.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=162693

Yes, the statistics presented above are for Highest gun death RATES vs % gun ownership, ALL included (murders, suicides, accidents, etc., you name it). These date just simply show that death rate goes up with the % of gun ownership, period, like the 4 highest states have about FIVE times the number of deaths than the lower ones, not few percents. So, any person with a modicum of intelligence will conclude that there certainly exists a strong correlation between these two variables.

Did the ownership of a firearm ever prevent an homicide? Most certainly yes, but did it resulted in the death of the aggressor? More likely. So it’s a wash, and the data above presents the true picture of the situation in the US. However, if the murder rate in this country is the highest among developed nations, it is only 10th in the world, with Jamaica (or Honduras) being number 1, so I guess every this fine in this country.

PS. January, 2013. MA has now the lowest gun death rate (50th), with 12.8% ownership, and 3.14 deaths per 100,000 people. LA has still the highest rate, with 19.03 deaths per 100,000. Yes, there is a definite connection, and somehow MA is apparently doing the right thing.

"...lies, damned lies, and statistics"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWNOiw_XIV8

check this out: http://www.nationalaffairs.com/public_interest/detail/second-thoughts-about-gun-control. Download the PDF, fascinating reading.

My good Mr. Surette;

From what I understand the number of violations were so flagrant they had to crack down.

Count 1: Failure to properly secure a dangerous weapon

Count 2: Carrying on School Grounds

Count 3: Carrying without a license

Count 4: This was her second toy of the month so violation of the "more than one gun a month" bill

Count 5: Violation of a large capacity mag (more than 7 gum balls in the clip)

Even though the 3 hour interrogation probably scarred the small child for life you must admit that due to the numerous violations something had to be done.

Great article and on point!