An interesting list of crimes less horrible than hicap mags
by Paul 
, Sunday, February 17, 2013, 11:37 (4300 days ago)
in New York... the list is copied directly from the link referenced here:
http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/item/just-how-vomitous-is-cuomo
Here is a list of just some of the crimes NY finds less offensive than owning a standard capacity AR or Glock magazine (a class D felony).
If you believe that owning a magazine for a common gun is worse than anything below, please kill yourself at once.
120.70 - Luring a child | E Felony
121.11 - Criminal obstruction of breathing or blood circulation | A Misdemeanor
125.10 - Criminally negligent homicide | E Felony
130.20 - Sexual misconduct | A Misdemeanor
130.25 - Rape 3rd degree | E Felony
130.40 - Criminal sexual act 3rd degree | E Felony
130.52 - Forcible touching | A Misdemeanor
130.53 - Persistent sexual abuse | E Felony (repeat child molester, must be caught and convicted in two separate cases before the charges even reach this level)
130.65A - Aggravated sexual abuse 4th degree | E Felony
130.85 - Female genital mutilation | E Felony
135.05 - Unlawful imprisonment 2nd degree | A Misdemeanor
135.10 - Unlawful imprisonment 1st degree | E Felony
135.45 - Custodial interference 2nd degree | A Misdemeanor
135.50 - Custodial interference 1st degree | E Felony
135.55 - Substitution of children | E Felony (switched at birth type of thing)
135.60 - Coercion 2nd degree | A Misdemeanor
150.01 - 5th degree Arson | A Misdemeanor
150.05 - 4th degree Arson | E Felony
178.10 - 4th degree Criminal diversion of prescription medications and prescriptions | A Misdemeanor
178.15 - 3rd degree Criminal diversion of prescription medications and prescriptions | E Felony
220.28 - Use of a child to commit a controlled substance offense | E Felony
240.05 - Riot 2nd degree | A Misdemeanor
240.06 - Riot 1st degree | E Felony
240.08 - Inciting to riot | A Misdemeanor
240.10 - Unlawful assembly | B Misdemeanor
240.15 - Criminal anarchy | E Felony
240.20 - Disorderly conduct | Violation
240.61 - Placing a false bomb or hazardous substance 2nd degree | E Felony
250.45 - Unlawful surveillance 2nd degree | E felony (Hidden cams for sexual gratification)
255.25 - Incest 3rd degree | E Felony
263.11 - Possessing an obscene sexual performance by a child | E Felony
263.16 - Possessing a sexual performance by a child | E Felony
Interesting, but trivial.
I understand the point − and even agree with it, more or less − but I don't think it advances the pro-gun argument.
Good for a 'Book Of Facts' − or even games, such as 'Trivial Pursuit' − but that's really about it.
Better, I think, to stick to the issue: Freedom.
--
![[image]](http://www.sixshootercommunity.com/share/awkward.gif)
No doubt that freedom is the main issue,
by Paul , Sunday, February 17, 2013, 12:30 (4300 days ago) @ FOG
however I don't find the information posted to be trivial. When a nation loses its sense of values, when it condemns the possession of items more than actions which cause harm to others, it is not trivial.
I agree Paul
by Dave B 
, Alamogordo New Mexico, Sunday, February 17, 2013, 12:34 (4300 days ago) @ Paul
How can one equate an inanimate object to be a greater offense than that which causes permanent and irreversible harm?
Good question...
But entirely rhetorical.
I do not support 'gun control' in NY or anywhere else, but I am absolutely certain the intent of such laws is not to "equate" any kind of behavior with any other.
--
No, not rhetorical at all. I AM interested in the way
by Paul , Sunday, February 17, 2013, 13:12 (4300 days ago) @ FOG
people think. How people come to the conclusions they come to is, to me anyway, a fascinating study. Often we read more into something than is there, or on the other hand we overlook something that to others is obvious.
You see nothing in the published list of offenses that has anything to do with guns or gun control or "the issue: Freedom". Yet one must ask, "what exactly do these things show us about freedom and the mentality of those who have instituted unreasonable laws?"
To your mind they have nothing to do with the issue, to others they DO have a lot to do with the basic matter to which we are referring - the denial of the right of an individual to possess an inanimate object.
The list of crimes is a list of actions, most of which are condemned by most civilized people. Actions done by individuals to individuals, actions resulting in harm either physical or psychological to another person. Yet the ones who have passed the law in question deem that the mere possession of an inanimate object even without causing harm to another nor yet having been proved to intend to harm another is to be punished more severely than actions that indeed cause harm to another.
You tell us that this has nothing to do with "the issue: Freedom". Some of us believe otherwise. Freedom is not about causing harm to another, it is about being free from government intrusion in one's private life when one's private actions do no harm to another person. The possession of an inanimate object causes no harm to another, therefore it is ridiculous to assign greater punishment for such a "crime" than the punishment meted out in response to actions which DO bring harm to others.
Those who enacted such a law and any who enforce such a law are deserving of ridicule. We have been told that we should "be above all that", but should we? Should we not laugh to scorn those who are afraid of mere objects? Should we not shine light on the hypocrisy of those who invent crimes where no harm is done to another?
And, in case that this may come across as argumentative, looking for a fight or any other such interpretation, that is NOT my intent. :) I asked, honestly, for your opinion and although you did not ask for mine I gave it freely. It's worth what you paid for it, I'm sure. If not, I'll be glad to issue a refund! 
Where you say "One must ask", we diverge.
A person with an entirely different bend (one toward gun control, not away from it), could no doubt come up with an equally 'disturbing' list of other lesser − or, for that matter, greater − crimes in NY State, and the question would remain the same: SO WHAT?
IMO, it has NOTHING to do with the gun issue.
--
Call it 'Changing The Subject', then...
It still has the same result: Deflecting attention from the issue at hand.
Frankly, I thought such tactics were reserved for the 'other' side, but I suppose 'all is fair.'
The "information", however valuable it may be, has NOTHING to do with the gun issue.
That is really all there is to it.
--
Perhaps you'd be so kind as to...
by Paul , Sunday, February 17, 2013, 12:55 (4300 days ago) @ FOG
remind us what the issue IS? Somehow I'm not following your line of reasoning but am interested in understanding your point of view.
The issue is 'Gun Control', is it not?
Or am I just confused?
I don't think I am. At all.
I just don't see any connection between the other crimes listed in the article and 'gun control'.
Because there isn't one.
--
As mentioned above...
by Paul , Sunday, February 17, 2013, 13:20 (4300 days ago) @ FOG
the issue (as we understand it) is punishing the possession of in inanimate object with no intent to cause harm to another to a greater degree than actions committed by an individual that result in harm to another. Hoplophobia (fear of instruments/weapons) is what drives such laws. Instruments/weapons are inanimate, they can only cause harm when they are wielded by a person. Causing harm to another is something that merits strict punishment, assigning greater punishment for merely possessing an inanimate object than for causing harm to another person is asinine at best. There IS a link to "gun control" in that those who are supporting this law are showing irrationality and this MUST be brought out. Is that not the core of our rejection of so called "gun control", the very irrationality of attempting to end certain actions by controlling accessibility to inanimate objects?
The core?
That's interesting: Dopers feel the same way about drugs.
Who's right? (A decidedly rhetorical question, to be sure...)
--
Not only dopers...
by Paul , Sunday, February 17, 2013, 13:29 (4300 days ago) @ FOG
many feel that legislating against inanimate objects/substances is an exercise in futility. We, as a nation, didn't learn much from "Prohibition".
If we'd start stringing up those who, under the influence of drugs (including alcohol), do harm to others then we'd go a lot further towards ending the scourge than we have by attempting to prohibit possession of easily acquired substances.
We need to learn to legislate regarding actions instead of attempting to prohibit easily acquired substances/objects.
I don't know exactly how we can get our 'bearings' back...
But I am pretty sure we cannot do it by 'stringing people up'.
The government − ANY government − is the very last entity I would want to have the power of life and death.
Unfortunately, history is just that, I'm afraid.
--
Punishment
by Dave B , Alamogordo New Mexico, Sunday, February 17, 2013, 19:00 (4300 days ago) @ FOG
Punishment should always fit the crime. To punish for the mere possession of an inanimate object more strictly than crimes which directly affect individuals and cause harm or death, to me is unjust, and way out of whack. If someone kills someone under the influence of drugs or alcohol, then let the punishment be according to the crime, the mere possession of drugs causes no one harm. Looks at the trillions wasted on combating illegal drugs, and all we have done is create drug cartels more powerful then our own mafia could ever dream of.
It shows the hate and fear.
Theoretically, paying to have sex with a child is just as bad, and will get you the same punishment, as having an 11 round magazine.
In my county you can't get a full carry pistol permit, unless you transfer and carry large amounts of cash every week. Proving that to them, money has more value than my life.
I'm now no better than an arsonist or pedophile in their eyes as well.
possession of a styrofoam cup is going to be illegal if
Bloomberg has his way. They have already outlawed drinks over 16 ounces in restaurants.
yes, he was elected Mommie, not mayor, in his opinion
