Only about 4% of NY assault rifles are registered, new stats suggest

Well would you look at that.

I don't know about "low-level felony". Last time I looked at the NY statutes (when SAFE Act was being ramrodded through), it was a lesser penalty under state law to possess an unregistered NFA weapon than it was to possess a semi-auto or magazine banned under SAFE.

I'm glad to see that despite that New Yorkers value their inherent civil rights more than they fear an unjust law.

I suspect that the "red counties" may have a greater population then the green. Unfortunately this is an excellent example of the tail wagging the dog. :banghead:

I suspect that the "red counties" may have a greater population then the green.

Click to expand...

The New York City metropolitan area by itself contains 64% of the entire state's population. It really ought to be its own state.

The larger state would go broke without the NYC & suburbs tax revenue.

The larger state would go broke without the NYC & suburbs tax revenue.

Click to expand...

Large cities are almost invariably money pits. NYC is probably a huge financial drain on the rest of the state.


edit; from cursory research, it appears that NYC actually breaks even in terms of taxes paid to the state and state funds allocated to it. I'm very surprised by this.

I'd guess about 99% of assault rifles are registered in NY, as by technical definition, an assault rifle is selective fire. I'm sure there are a few 'basement conversions' about, but I'd suspect most are on the NFA 's rolls......

Midwest said:

Only about 4% of NY assault rifles are registered, new stats suggest.

Click to expand...

I suspect 99% of the people owning "assault rifles" in NY have the weapons registered. I guess there are just a lot less than people think. Funny how that works.

General Geoff said:

Large cities are almost invariably money pits. NYC is probably a huge financial drain on the rest of the state.


edit; from cursory research, it appears that NYC actually breaks even in terms of taxes paid to the state and state funds allocated to it. I'm very surprised by this.

Click to expand...

Just curious, aside from the taxes generated by Wall St., banks headquartered in NYC, the thousands of company headquarters in NYC and Westchester Cty., and the international commerce that flows through NYC, where and how do think all this additional money is being produced in the rest of NYS?

There are a LOT of businesses in NY State

That map is so misleading, dirt doesn't get a vote, we all know the vast majority of the population lives in the red counties.

That map is so misleading, dirt doesn't get a vote, we all know the vast majority of the population lives in the red counties.

Click to expand...

The red areas are the greater NYC area, Albany, and Ithaca. Outside of NYC the next most populous areas are Rochester and Buffalo. Those are green. Most of NYS is actually conservative. It's NYC that skews it for the rest. From a practical standpoint, NYC should be it's own state or district. It's demographics in just about any area do not reflect upstate NY (which is basically Orange County on northward) at all.

"Unfortunately this is an excellent example of the tail wagging the dog."
No, more an example of 230 year old gerrymandering (or however old NYs present boundaries are) for territory reaching its logical conclusion in a system where there is no mechanism to periodically 'redistrict' state boundaries with any efficiency.

The Constitution really should have had a bottom-end threshold of population density for regions seeking statehood, and a top-end threshold of population share within a state at which point a city must split from its state into a District (like Columbia) with two senators and a fixed number of representatives and permanent borders. Kali would be the size of Virginia or so, and NYC would be the District of Manhattan by now ruling only its own affairs while influencing federal efforts. We'd have +100 states right now whose neighbors were all far more similar to each other than we have today, and urban politics could only grow as fast as the number of urban centers, rather than the exponential growth of their populations.

TCB

"That map is so misleading, dirt doesn't get a vote"
That 'dirt' does, however, retain certain inalienable rights, so it doesn't need to vote in our system. But to thwart tyrannical majorities who invariably forget that fact and abuse their advantage in representation, the extent and nature of their mandate should be checked and balanced by various methods (namely, within the government implementing their will)

A system that caps the representation of a region of sufficient population density is brilliant; such clusters of mankind are inherently anti-democratic and statist as we have seen all along, so reducing the weight of each individual's voice within as they pile higher and deeper is a safeguard. Either that, or go back to restricting your representation to those who own property (of which there are few in dense areas due to the centralization at the heart of the increasing statism).

Yeah, I know they'd never go for it, and would abuse their advantage of force to exert their will regardless

TCB

Ummmm, actually it's more like the other way 'round.

HexHead said:

The larger state would go broke without the NYC & suburbs tax revenue.

Click to expand...

Just what NY wanted ... a whole new populations of "criminals" that they can threaten with arrest/jail if they get "uppity".

My point was I feel the map was trying to make the case that the law was overwhelmingly unpopular in NY, when the opposite is the case.

It is hugely unpopular in *most* of New York.

4 percent is just a wild guess.

Unless there was a way of knowing exactly how many guns there is/ was to begin with.

I see the map as clearly showing what is an inevitable existential conflict that should be resolved before it gets out of hand.

"It is hugely unpopular in *most* of New York."
Do you forget to include 'city' in that figure, or is it because there are so many NYCers who don't think it goes far enough? Because the numbers that matter as far as policy are solidly in favor of these idiot proposals.

TCB

barnbwt said:

"That map is so misleading, dirt doesn't get a vote"
That 'dirt' does, however, retain certain inalienable rights, so it doesn't need to vote in our system. But to thwart tyrannical majorities who invariably forget that fact and abuse their advantage in representation, the extent and nature of their mandate should be checked and balanced by various methods (namely, within the government implementing their will)

A system that caps the representation of a region of sufficient population density is brilliant; such clusters of mankind are inherently anti-democratic and statist as we have seen all along, so reducing the weight of each individual's voice within as they pile higher and deeper is a safeguard. Either that, or go back to restricting your representation to those who own property (of which there are few in dense areas due to the centralization at the heart of the increasing statism).


Yeah, I know they'd never go for it, and would abuse their advantage of force to exert their will regardless

TCB

Click to expand...

Yea. That 3/5th Compromise was just too far ahead of its time.

I'd guess that we'd have to change the Declaration of Independence to something like this

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, as long as they don't live in a big city , that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

Click to expand...

It makes more sense if you can accept that densely-packed persons progressively lose their individuality in practice

But please, go on and explain how a large assortment of folks who've never left Manhattan should have unquestioned say over how affairs are dictated hundreds of miles away to individuals who will never travel to Manhattan. It is quite literally the arrangement we had with England at one time, until we got too big for their britches.

"Yea. That 3/5th Compromise was just too far ahead of its time."
The flaw with the Compromise was that it was static in a dynamic world, as the North industrialized and exploded in population, while slavery declined. Say what you will about the morality of the Compromise, it got the South on board an integrated into a nation that desperately needed its capital and resources. The failure of the Compromise was ultimately what lead to the free state/slave state representation games, other failed Compromises, and the Civil War (hard to blame either side for believing the other was bent on dominating, but the North truly was bent on dictating Southern affairs, slavery first and foremost)

TCB

Living in Upstate NY I can tell you that I could careless about which way the money flows and the financial ramifications,I would love to see the cancer(NYC) cut off this beautiful state.
Besides I would be willing to bet that a very large number of people who registered are LEO who were threatened to by Cuomo.

likesguns said:

Living in Upstate NY I can tell you that I could careless about which way the money flows and the financial ramifications,I would love to see the cancer(NYC) cut off this beautiful state.
Besides I would be willing to bet that a very large number of people who registered are LEO who were threatened to by Cuomo.

Click to expand...

Careful what you wish for. Say NYC does get cut off from the rest of the state and becomes its own State. That is 2 more votes in the Senate. Looking at the 2012 results by district it isn't clear that even a New York with NYC would swing Republican.