Charles J. Hynes wrote a letter to the New York Times calling on President Obama to form a national commission on gun control, insisting that the federal government needs to adopt stricter gun control statutes nationwide – a responsibility currently left largely to individual states.

Hynes, the Kings Country District Attorney, told the Times that, “The commission should be made up of experts from the fields of law enforcement, school safety, mental health, academia and sociology and include a representative from a respected hunting organization.”

Hynes hopes that the commission will represent a non-political group of experts who can then best present a recommended course of action for the U.S. Congress to enact when it comes to crafting sensible gun control laws.

Hynes ran down a list of topics that the commission should focus on including:

The prospect of prohibiting interstate transportation of guns, requiring background criminal and psychiatric checks before gun purchases at gun shows, a ban once again on automatic weapons, and on high-capacity ammunition magazine — all of which could be approved by Congress and not violate the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment.

Hynes closed the letter with a comparison of the recent tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary to that of September 11, in that it has shaken the national conscience and faith.

Related posts

  • Brightonresident

    The time for talk is LONG passed!! Now is the time for getting this done!

  • AIG_Quant

    only the negro is allowed to own guns in NYC… typical liberal assholes.

    • levp

      Its a low-quality trolling when you repeat the same insults again and again. You’ve got to up your game, people are starting to laugh at you!

    • wellDUH

      hey why actually discuss the issue when you can spout right wing talking points AND attack liberals.

  • ShadowLock

    This guy means Business yo!

  • Local Broker

    I have a very simple question. How would any of those laws prevented this tragedy?

    Please if you are going to respond to me and want to have a serious discussion about this use common sense and not some crazy emotional idea.

    • ShadowLock

      These people think, If there were no Guns, then a Gun wouldn’t have caused the Tragedy in Sandy Hook….. I personally think it would be important for Every teacher to wear a piece just for Child’s protection….. but then again this is America……

      • Local Broker

        It has worked in Israel for about 40 years.

        • ShadowLock

          I know EXACTLY what your talking about too…. LOL http://www.idaholiberty.com/wp-content/gallery/education/israeli-teacher.jpg

        • Brightonresident

          There is a big difference! First of all most Israeli citizens served in their military, so therefore have training. Second, Israeli’s are confronted by having enemies on all sides who don’t care about their own children! BIG DIFFERENCE!!!!

          • Local Broker

            I agree if teachers were to carry they would have to be trained. Dont think for a second that there aren’t people all around that want to harm you in some way. Crimes are committed every single day everywhere.

          • levp

            Good thing my wife is the one who is attending parent-teacher conferences! Now I know what to buy her for New Year – bulletproof vest!

          • saneGUNlaws

            crimes R committed every day but we cant all go around shooting our brokers (shrugs)

      • levp

        Remember, that most (if not all) public school teachers are union members – in other words, “union thugs”.
        So now you want armed union thugs? I say, bring it on! This will redefine “labor dispute” very soon…

        A second possible outcome. Student: “B__ch, take your homework and shove it!” Teacher: “OK, I’ve had enough with you little pieces of s__t! POW POW POW” Ask any teacher you know how many times they wanted to do this.

        A third possible outcome. Hypothetical Ms. Betty is 100 pounds at 5′ 1″ high. She works as a teacher at Lafayette High School (hypothetically). 3 students, each 225 pounds at 5′ 10″ high, know she is carrying and are waiting for her behind the corner in hallway. No more Ms. Betty.

        • bagels

          Those union “thugs” in Newtown did their best to protect those children and some of them lost their lives. Most teachers are hard working, dedicated people who are doing an extremely difficult and under appreciated job. It’s best not to broad brush an entire population of people with hateful words.

          • levp

            I thought that I don’t have to use <sarcasm> tags anymore?

    • bagels

      That’s a good question. If he was hell bent on killing a large number of people he could have just as easily built a bomb with instructions he found on the internet, strap it to his chest and then walk into the school and kill just as many people. But that can get complicated. Guns are more accessible. Guns are more fun. You get to dress up like a freak or your favorite character from a video game (I’m not blaming video games). There’s no reason why someone should be permitted to own assault rifles with high capacity magazines. Strict gun control has to be discussed at this point.

      • Local Broker

        Good points but doesn’t answer my question. There is no such thing as an assault rifle its just a rifle. Just because you take a black colored rifle and change the grip doesn’t make it do anything different. You wouldn’t say that when referring to a bat or knife.

        • levp

          Magazine capacity and reloading speed is what matters.

          Speaking of knives: how many children have died in the Chinese school attack where a knife was used? (Hint: none.)

          • Local Broker

            Stop with the sarcasm its not the time for it. Its a good thing none of them died. besides AZ shooting do you know what all these events have in common?

          • bagels

            The shooters had some kind of mental illness?

          • Local Broker

            All of them were weapon (gun) free zones. As mentally sick as all of them were they knew they were going to a place that no one had they capability of stopping them. Dont know if you knew this but the Mall shooter in Oregon was confronted by a Concealed carry holder and thats when he ran away and killed himself instead of continuing his rampage. Good thing that guy broke the Mall law and brought his gun with him. The cops didnt get to the school in Newtown for 20 minutes after the first call came in.

          • levp

            As someone wrote: “If only the first victim, Adam Lanza’s mother, had been a gun owner, she could have stopped this before it started.”

          • Local Broker

            Yeah good one. I know its hard to understand that the existing gun laws worked. He went to the store and because of the law was denied the purchase so he goes and kills someone and steals their guns to go kill more. Thats what happened. No twist in that story just facts.

          • levp

            Exactly. See my “third possible outcome” in the comment about arming teachers. Now there will be more readily available guns to be stolen.

          • Local Broker

            More? There are 300 million gun in the US one for every person in this country. Your scenarios are your uneducated opionion on the subject. There is no proof or stat that back anything you have said just other opinions. There are less cars in the country i think around 250 mil and more people die from cars every year. Thats a fact.

          • levp

            You are right – less cars, less fatalities on the road – which is why we should build a better public transit system.

          • Local Broker

            Great idea. Go for it.

          • levp

            I am already. They don’t give out Liberal membership cards for nothing, you know!

          • getSANE boutGUNS

            IF only someone had a gun in that aruroa movie theater… he or she could have shot the shooter in that totally dark and smoke filled room of chaos… of coirse the likelyhood is that even MORE people could have been accidently shot but hey we dont ever discuss what it really means to turn america back into the wold wild west cause the founders said no one should infringe on our rights to own single fire muskets 200 plus years ago

          • Local Broker

            The guy in the mall didn’t fire one round. The shooter looked right at him, ran away and killed himself. There are between 1-1.5 million defensive gun uses every year that no one in the media covers and most of them never fire a shot. Just showing someone you are not defenseless is enough to deter them most of the time. I didnt know you can still smoke in movie theaters.

        • tired of teh sameOl BSbutGUNS

          not all rifles can rapidly repeat fire so please quit pretending all rifles are just rifles

          • Local Broker

            You make great arguments.

      • Patrick Henry

        Why do I need an assault rifle you ask? I don’t
        need it for hunting. I don’t need it for home protection from a single
        invader, or even two. So I echo the sentiment of many gun control
        advocates; Why do I need an assault rifle, with a high capacity clip no
        less?

        Here is why. I need an assault rifle because I live under the rule
        of a government who thinks it has the right to take away my assault
        rifle; a government who dictates who I can marry, what I can eat, drink,
        and smoke; a government who uses force to take my money away from me,
        who charges me rent (property tax) to live in my own home: a government
        who commits acts of war without the consent of the people, who murders
        it’s own citizens witout probable cause or due process; a government who
        has monopolized the currency with which I can trade my goods and
        services, then devalued that currency through inflation and taxation; a
        government which uses the tyranny of democracy rather than the freedom
        of a republic.

        To put it bluntly, I need an assault rifle in the event that I
        might have to declare my independence from a tyrannical government. I’m
        statistically unlikely to ever shoot an intruder in my home. I’m
        statistically unlikely to ever be in the position to stop one of these
        rare mass killings at a school, as these things happen far less often
        than the media would have you believe. However, whether you are Democrat
        or Republican, you can easily find countless instances of the
        government stepping all over your rights, whether it be on social issues
        (marriage, gay rights, religious rights, etc.) or fiscal issues
        (taxation, property rights, business regulations, etc.)

        So, how likely is it you will use your assault rifle to prevent a
        school shooting? Not very likely at all. However, how likely is it that
        you will need your assault rifle for the purpose of protecting your
        rights from a tyrannical government? Well, the fact that we are having
        this conversation not only shows that it is increasingly likely, but it
        also clearly demonstrates the reason why the right to bear arms is
        unalienable.

        When a tyrannical government uses it’s assault rifles to take away my
        rights, it would be beyond immoral to expect me to defend those rights
        with my grandpa’s shotgun. That is why I need an assault rifle.

        • Local Broker

          +100

          • levp

            Good luck with that revolution, gentlemen.

    • levp

      Not necessarily prevent, but certainly significantly reduce the scope.
      This is the relevant part:

      a ban once again on automatic weapons, and on high-capacity ammunition magazine

      These 2 rules would also make Tucson, AZ victim count smaller as well.

      requiring background criminal and psychiatric checks before gun purchases at gun shows

      And this is just closing the loophole – what could be wrong with that? These rules already apply when purchasing from a store:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Instant_Criminal_Background_Check_System

      • Local Broker

        There already is a ban on full auto weapons. In order to buy one besides them costing upwards of 20k you have to go through a 6 month screening process done by the atf, fbi. and fill out more papers than you do to open a corp. Do we need 100 round drums? No. But if that person wants to do bad things and already has a gun whats the difference what capacity he has. 10-15 or 30 it takes less than 2 second to change mags with a little practice. As for private party sales i agree they should be subject to a background check same as if you buy in a store. So again how would any of this stopped what happened on Friday?

        • levp

          See below for a more precise definition of proposed legislation:
          http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/12/16/feinstein-will-introduce-assault-weapons-ban-in-senate/

          Note that Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994, known as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, expired in 2004.

          Definition per that (currently not in force) law:

          In addition to the 19 weapons specifically prohibited, the federal assault weapons ban also defined as a prohibited assault weapon any semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine and at least two of the following five items: a folding or telescopic stock; a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; a bayonet mount; a flash suppressor or threaded barrel (a barrel that can accommodate a flash suppressor); or a grenade launcher. The act also defined as a prohibited assault weapon semi-automatic pistols that weighed more than 50 ounces when unloaded or included a barrel shroud, and barred the manufacture of magazines capable of carrying more than 10 rounds.

          See also:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

          • Local Broker

            I know exactly what it is and its dumb. This ban is already in for NY, NJ, CT and a couple others. So the rifle he used fell under this ban it means nothing. All it does is effect normal law abiding citizens. Its all bullshit propaganda making you think this ban is somehow going to save people from bad people that want to harm you. You like doing research so look up the ban that in right now for these states then tell me what difference it will make. Then go look up a stock springfield m1a and an stock AR-15 they look completely different but do the same exact thing except one looks scary and the other is wood. The ban is nothing but the cosmetics of the gun and nothing to do with the function.

          • levp

            Lanza’s rifle was equipped with a magazine capable of firing 30 rounds. In 2011, the Connecticut legislature considered a bill that would have banned high-capacity magazines with 10 or more rounds. But hundreds of gun enthusiasts showed up for a hearing on the bill, and thousands more wrote and called legislators. After the hearing, the bill died.

            http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/newtown-sandy-hook-school-shooting/hc-newtown-assault-weapons-20121217,0,7818253.story

          • Local Broker

            So? The cops didnt show up for 20 minutes not blaming them just fact. It takes 2 seconds to change a mag you do the math. I appreciate that you are trying to make an argument but no matter how hard you try there is no law that would have stopped this.

          • levp

            Again, we are not talking about stopping, just making it (much) harder to accomplish, thereby reducing the number of victims.

          • Local Broker

            I already said i agree there are certain things that need to change but outright bans on law abiding citizens is not fair and probably not going to happen. If we are talking about saving lives lets ban fast food, cigs, alcohol. Those things are just as useless as high cap mags.

          • wellDUH

            the issues is DANGEROUS not ‘useless’

          • Local Broker

            Those things are not dangerous?

          • levp

            Any recent massacres committed by fast food, cigarettes or alcohol?

          • nolastname

            Just the same old (dropping like flies) health issues.

          • levp

            “Just say No” (Mr. Bloomberg will help too)

          • Local Broker

            Cmon

          • levp

            What? You can’t seriously compare the two.
            Fast food, cigarettes (excluding “second-hand smoking”) and alcohol are being consumed voluntarily, as opposed to bullets hitting one’s body.

            If we want to protect our children from fast food injuries/death, we only need to NOT give them fast food. If you make guns and fast food equivalent, then to protect our children from gun injuries/death, we need to take away everyone’s guns. Come to think of it, you are right again! We do need to restrict everyone’s guns to protect our children!

            We agree; problem solved.

          • Local Broker

            I like that little excluding “second-hand smoking” part and you are telling me that drunk drivers dont kill other people on a daily basis? The people That are killed didnt smoke or drink voluntarily. How can you be so close minded and not realize that these politicians dont care about these shootings and have bean wanting to pass these laws for years and years. They are using the deaths of little babies to push their agenda. Its fucking disgusting that not even 24 hours later bodies not even cold and these scum make it into a political opportunity. They dont care about guns they care about restricting your freedom and you will see a lot more to come in the next few years.

          • levp

            I thought you said “use common sense and not some crazy emotional idea”? Back at ya.

            You may know that in New York City, as well as in increasing number of other municipalities, smoking is prohibited in office buildings, hospitals, restaurants etc. and within 25 feet of any public entrance. There are statewide smoking bans as well:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans_in_the_United_States

            There are new laws being created all the time to address DUI and DWI problem. Just in the last couple of days:
            http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-12-11/politics/35767743_1_ignition-interlock-devices-drunken-drivers-wrong-way-drivers

            So you agree that weapons should be regulated on the same level as smoking and alcohol, right?

          • Local Broker

            I dont know every single law that exist for cigs and alcohol so i couldn’t answer that. I do know there are thousands of laws in the books regarding firearms and they include a lot of places where you cant carry even if you have a permit. Using NYC to compare doesnt work because only the rich and famous are aloud to protect them selves here. There is no way for a regular person to get a carry permit in NYC. Actors, movie stars, politicians and friends of the emperor all who can afford private security have carry permits. Great more laws for DUI and DWI. How will any of them stop some asshole from drinking a bottle of vodka at rasputin then getting in his car for a joyride? Why is it so hard to understand that bad people dont care about how many laws there are. Street drugs are illegal but they are everywhere and doesnt stop users or dealers and whoever else. There is nothing you can say to prove your point, everything you come up with is not based on facts just opinions.

          • levp

            If facts you want, please refer to:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
            (firearm-related death-rate per 100,000 population in one year)
            Use only “Homicides” column (unless you do want to include suicides):

            US 3.7
            Israel 0.94
            Canada 0.76
            Ukraine 0.35 (my old country!)
            France 0.22
            UK 0.04 (90 times less than US)
            Japan 0.02

            You might be relieved to find that United States is not number one (number 14, actually):
            El Salvador 50.36
            Hooray, we are better than El Salvador AND even Zimbabwe (4.75)!

          • Local Broker

            You cant use these numbers with out other facts. How about uk gun crime up 35% last year. If they have no guns how is that possible? How about other homicides? How many were committed by felons and not random acts of violence? The facts are wherever law abiding citizens are allowed to carry weapons the crime rates are lower. If you have a magic wand that can get rid of all the guns in this country and tell me that criminals and police cant have them then you can have mine too. Also if you like those countries so much move there otherwise its a weak argument.

          • levp

            What’s wrong with these numbers? Sources are listed at the end of the cited article. Why would I care whether I get killed by a felon or a “random act of violence”?

            “Wherever law abiding citizens are allowed to carry weapons the crime rates are lower” – that’s not a fact, “just your uneducated opinion on the subject”. Please cite statistics (with sources).

            And speaking of education, finally we come to a “love it or leave it” argument – a textbook example of a “false dilemma” logical fallacy.
            http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/fd.htm

          • Local Broker

            Why would I care whether I get killed by a felon or a “random act of violence”? Because random act are just that random. Which means laws wont help you and how often do they happen. Felons dont care how many laws there are and usually are killing each other because they cant decide who should have the right to break more laws.

            “Wherever law abiding citizens are allowed to carry weapons the crime
            rates are lower” – that’s not a fact, “just your uneducated opinion on
            the subject”. Please cite statistics (with sources). Is a fact look it up not going to do homework for you. You should do your research before you started this conversation and not just take a side cause you feel like it. Just because you feel a certain way doesnt mean its right and dictate how others should live. So do your homework.
            Yeah if you are going to use other countries and good examples of how we should live why not just move there. I didnt like the place i was living in so i moved.

          • levp

            You can’t just declare something to be a fact – the burden of proof is you. I did do my homework, as evidenced by citations I use. Let’s see your citations.

            As for the “move there” argument, I can reply using exact words of Carl Schurz, Union Army general in the American Civil War:

            The Senator from Wisconsin cannot frighten me by exclaiming, “My country, right or wrong.” In one sense I say so too. My country; and my country is the great American Republic. My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.

            EDIT: quote source:
            http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Carl_Schurz

          • Local Broker

            I dont keep files on this subject and i didnt just look them up this morning. Everything i said is a fact based on stats that i have seen over the last couple years. I am not going to go look up every stat so i can link them for you. I dont have to prove anything to you because it wont make a difference to you. You have your mind made up and theres no changing it. I never said there shouldnt be laws or every one of them is bad. The ones that make common sense should be put into place but banning a rifle because it looks a certain way and doesnt function any different doesnt make sense. I am all for background checks and trying to to keep guns out of the wrong hands but limiting what i can buy or use for legal purposes is not right. If that is the way of thinking we should get rid of all cars that can exceed the fastest speed limit in the country. Why would anyone need a car that can go 150 mph? Also we should make everyone take a breathalyzer every single time they drive. Do those things make sense? Not to me.

          • levp

            Any references are not really for my benefit, but rather for the benefit of other readers. Think of it as a court where we are attorneys – you have to convince the jury (in our case, voters).

            As for cars analogy, why indeed, unless you are in Germany where there are roads built for that kind of speed? But even on Autobahns, there is an “advisory speed limit” (though not mandatory) of 130 km/h (81 mph).
            Apparently, many regulatory bodies agree, hence mandatory and voluntary speed-limiting devices:
            http://auto.howstuffworks.com/car-driving-safety/safety-regulatory-devices/speed-limiter.htm

          • Local Broker

            True i would hope all the people reading our conversation can keep an open mind and make good decisions. If there is anyone reading our conversation in the first place. We both know that Ned only has 20-30 readers here and does this to pretend hes important or something.

          • levp

            No, I didn’t know that, so you are on your own there…

          • Local Broker

            I did take the time to find a site that has to much info on the subject. Go through it if you like there is a tin of stats. Keep an open mind and make sure to look at the charts.
            http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

          • levp

            You know I would have rebuttals (for example, how direct correlation between Michigan/Florida and nationwide crime rates points to lack of effect of conceal-carry laws in both states). But OK, we can leave it for the next time.

          • Local Broker

            Of course there are going to be rebuttals. Maybe one day you will decide to get yourself on of these.
            http://www.glamguns.com/hk47.html

          • levp

            “Hello Kitty” FTW! Now if I only had a grand…

          • Local Broker
          • levp

            Here is a relevant article about Japan (lowest per capita firearm-related death rate):
            “A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths”
            http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/

          • Local Broker

            Stop using other countries as examples. They dont have 300 million guns in circulation with 100 million owners.

          • levp

            They don’t, indeed – precisely my point. Thank you.

          • Local Broker

            So do you have a magic wand?

          • levp

            No magic wand. But what DA is talking about are good first steps, though. There are other examples we can look at, such as Australia:
            http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html

          • levp

            Please cite a source for the UK gun crime statistics. The only one I can find is from 2003:
            http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2640817.stm

            Which means that increase is already included in my numbers (they are from 2011). Still 90 times less than US rates, per capita.

          • Local Broker

            Im not going to start searching articles for you. google that shit. You just keep reading the news and link to stories and paste what makes sense for your argument without looking at both sides or even trying to understand it. If the facts that i gave you were the other way around i would not feel the way i do.

          • levp

            I did Google that shit. That shit is from 2003 (see my previous reply). Hence 35% increase is already included in my cited statistics from 2011.

            If the facts that i gave you were the other way around i would not feel the way i do.

            Perhaps, but they are not.

          • levp

            As if on cue:
            “Gun deaths set to outstrip car fatalities for first time in 2015″
            http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/gun-deaths-set-outstrip-car-fatalities-first-time-152632492.html

          • Local Broker

            Yeah nice try but that includes suicides which account for 63% of gun deaths. Studies show that with or without a gun those suicide numbers would be the same. So go do the math again minus the suicides and come back to me.

          • levp

            As that article points out, the rate of “deaths from firearms” is increasing, while the rate of “auto-related deaths” is decreasing. So, while not in 2015, your suicide exception will be moot eventually.

            But, suicide death is still a death, and we should at least try to prevent those as well. The following article is instructive:
            “Bearing the blame for suicides”
            http://o.seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/jerrylarge/2012302812_jdl08.html

  • Local Broker

    The man has some common sense.

  • Local Broker

  • Local Broker

    Here is the best explanation of your need to carry. It just so happens that it comes from Americas favorite gun grabber. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)