Ball Issues Statement on The Journal News' Security Concerns

Editors At The Journal News Cry “Uncle”

Albany, N.Y. – 1/08/2013 – “How ironic that the same irresponsible editors, who one day before Christmas, went out of their way to place a virtual scarlet letter on law abiding firearm owners, including victims of domestic violence, hero cops and single moms, are now crying uncle. When asked to take the site down, they told all of these good, law abiding people to 'eat cake.' Well, now these same editors are getting a taste of that poisonous cake and if anything can wake them up and force them to take the interactive crime spree map down, maybe it will be their own intrinsic cowardice, because we sure as hell can't rely on their good judgment,” said Sen. Greg Ball.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Abby Normal January 10, 2013 at 10:08 PM
Teleman, Let's look at history. Back in the 20's or 30's criminals had machine guns. We made those guns illegal on the federal level and now we don't have any crimes this year that I know of that were committed with a machine gun. So now we have criminals using AR-15' semi automatic rifles. Seems to me the logical answer is to make them illegal on the federal level. It worked once. Why can't it work again?
Tyler Durden January 10, 2013 at 10:31 PM
Abby- To follow your logic to it's inevitable conclusion - when criminals are killing people with their bare hands, will we then ban hands on a federal level?
Teleman January 10, 2013 at 10:49 PM
An automatic firearm is equivalent to what law enforcement had- so they were outgunned. Now, law enforcement continues to have access to fully automatic weapons and pistols while civilians don't. The problem with banning semi-automatic firearms is that they make up a very large part of guns already owned by law abiding citizens. And as stated 100's of times on these forums- a very small amount of crimes are even committed with "ar-15 semi-auto rifles"- the facts again. IN 2011, 323 people were killed with rifles, 496 by hammers and 650 by knives- Out of those, a small number were ar15's
Teleman January 10, 2013 at 10:56 PM
Also, as demonstrated in Britain, totally removing guns from the population resulted in fewer gun deaths- of course ( but when comparing gun deaths in the US and Britain, it helps to compare the very large size difference in population and gun ownership)- But also resulted in a large increase in violent crime. So your chances of being shot went down, but your chances of being stabbed or beaten with a pipe went way up.
Aintthatascam January 11, 2013 at 02:37 AM
The same reason why people own cars that can go 140 MPH, or a boat that can go 90 MPH or a 5,000 Sq. foot house, because it is the right in this country, for anyone to own those type of weapons.
Aintthatascam January 11, 2013 at 02:49 AM
All rifles: purchased and possessed should be registered. Owner is responsible for that rifle, assault style or not. Transfer must be in writing. Rifle owners get a card or license, good for 4 years or so, now, that person has been cleared to buy a rifle. proof of a gun safe. 5 yrs. minimum jail if violate above rules. Ann, putting a "ban" on assault style weapons will do nothing, perhaps "outlaw" them. BUT, that won't happen, and if it does, you'll see a lot of people digging in their backyards lol.....
John Gruber January 11, 2013 at 05:04 AM
the "War on drugs" directly disproves your logic abby
John Gruber January 11, 2013 at 05:05 AM
seems sensible
Ann Fanizzi January 11, 2013 at 10:00 AM
@Aintthatascam - NRA won't agree to any of the common-sense suggestions you made to close some of the loopholes. The only thing I would disagree with is that no homeowner needs an assault-style rifle for defense of his home. If folks want to target, let the gun clubs have them, registered and secured. Saw a piece with Piers Morgan interviewing Mr. Schapiro, who stated that assault-style guns were needed in the eventuality of a tyrannical government coming to power. So much for believing in the power of the people and the rule of law enshrined in the Constitution and American's exceptionalism. And lastly, just read that Wyoming is ready with a so-called "gun protection law" thwarting Federal government efforts to enact any changes. The Red Line is being drawn.
Ann Fanizzi January 11, 2013 at 10:11 AM
Connecting the dots: NRA and gun manufacturers profiting from sales and mayhem. Article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/nra-gun-control-firearms-industry-ties_n_2434142.html
mark January 11, 2013 at 10:56 AM
John, the legal gun owner mom didnt lock her guns up properly. the entire thing was her fault. over 70% of gun crimes are committed with stolen gns from inept people who refuse to lock them up
Issy January 11, 2013 at 11:34 AM
When someone kills 26 children and adults using a pipe then you may have a point, but until then we need common sense laws to reduce the frequency and impact of gun crime.
Teleman January 11, 2013 at 12:47 PM
Ann, I addressed your last ridiculous post with some facts, and you just ignore and post the next nonsensical bunch of drivel. You have proven time and again you know nothing about firearms or the 2nd amendment.- statistics and facts do not stand in the way of your constant spewing- your arguments fail over and over and you just post some more copy and pasted non-fact checked nonsense off of the internet. Please. And as far as a "red line"- it was drawn long ago.
Ann Fanizzi January 11, 2013 at 01:12 PM
@Teleman - read many of your posts and won't insult you as you are prone to do since you absolutely cannot cannot refute them and so you have only one weapon left.
Aintthatascam January 11, 2013 at 01:33 PM
I, as an owner of many rifles, am a little upset at how easy one can obtain a rifle, hunting or otherwise. 18 years old, and a driver's license. You fill out a form with a bunch of questions, a phone call is made to make sure you don't have a criminal background, and within (typically) 20 minutes, you're walking out with a rifle. Now, in the wrong hands, harm to innocent people can be done. Ann is right about certain rifles for home protection. A round from an ar-15, actually any high power rifle, can go through your walls of sheetrock and into your neighbor's house.
Aintthatascam January 11, 2013 at 01:43 PM
Keeping YOUR guns locked up (mine are in a safe in my basement) and putting the liability on the original gun owner (in the event of a tragedy), is the way to go. This mentioning of a "ban" is causing store shelves to be emptied, a panic has ensued. I'm upset that there is price gauging going on. Putting restrictions on magazine capacities, etc. etc. is not going to work. There are WAY TOO MANY weapons out there already. A $100 4 year permit obtainable through a background check, including mental records, a Mandatory "safe", which run from $120 and up and personal liability is a good start. I wonder if the weapon(s) Adam acquired were locked up? To think, the legislation I mention could have saved those kids, just a safe. I really wonder, got to research that. New York state is more caught up in micro stamping of bullets, a stupid Idea, while easy, common sense Ideas, like I mentioned, can go into effect swiftly.
Ann Fanizzi January 11, 2013 at 02:45 PM
Wrote on another site - am awaiting the police reports on their investigation of the house and its contents. State police left some tintalating suggestions that there were significant finds. Feds can do much more that the State but it is a starter.
Don Pachner January 11, 2013 at 03:43 PM
Good points, Ann! I agree completely. Interesting That the comments in response make no mention of hunting, only of the desired use to shoot another human being.
Teleman January 11, 2013 at 04:03 PM
Ann, I don't see any insults- other than your omission of facts. As a law abiding gun owner, first responder, father, husband, youth sports coach and scout leader, I try to see both sides of a rational, factual discussion. And I'm not against background checks and tightening of restrictions to make sure mentally ill individuals can't purchase firearms ( Existing law may have been the reason Lanza did not purchase rifle at the store).But your constant copying and pasting of carefully selected information that leaves out important, relevant facts makes it difficult to have a meaningful discussion.We need to stop with the extreme, emotion based talk and talk facts.
Teleman January 11, 2013 at 04:06 PM
And also, rational thought would tell me that if we REALLY wanted to prevent another Newtown tragedy, wouldn't we wait to see and analyze the final report from law enforcement- so we could really know what happened and figure out how we may be able to reduce the chance of it happening again? We're rushing to pass laws to prevent something that we don't even know how the events leading up to it occurred.
Issy January 11, 2013 at 04:21 PM
Rational thought would also tell you that Newtown is not unique and that they have been other past mass school shootings upon which to draw information. And rational thought would also tell you we are not rushing, in fact we have been tardy in establishing common sense gun laws that could have diminished the Newport massacre.
Robert Guttman January 11, 2013 at 04:59 PM
There is no "well-regulated militia", and there hasn't been in 150 years. The 2nd Amendment says that a "well-regulated militia" is necessary to the security of the state", but that is clearly no longer the case. We have the largest all-volunteer military in the world, as well as public law enforcement agencies, neither of which even existed in 1791. We are living in the 21st Century, not the 18th Century. When a law becomes obsolete, and not only no longer serves the public interest but actually harms it, then it is time to change that law. The Constitution is not carved in stone, it had been amended many times. Slavery has been outlawed, and women have been given the vote. If we follow the shrill and hysterical logic of the NRA, neither of those would have happened possible because both meant amending the Constitution. It's time to amend the Constitution yet again.
Abby Normal January 11, 2013 at 05:16 PM
Ann, What can the police reports possible say that is relevant to the issue of gun control? We already know that they were his mother's guns and that he murdered her before he murdered all those children and adults at Newtown. Are we going to look to blame video games and movies? That only works if there are no video games or movies in all the other countries of the world. Was he insane? Sure he was, who else would kill children? Does that excuse it? If his mother wasn't dead, I'd like to see her prosecuted on twenty-six counts of murder. She was living with an emotionally disturbed child and her answer was to teach him to shoot? I can't wait for Tuesday to hear what Biden has to say and if the gun lobby doesn't like it, it's just too damn bad.
Teleman January 11, 2013 at 07:05 PM
So issy, how is rational thought to start going after "assault" rifles, when they were used in a very small fraction of crimes and in 2011 323 people were killed with rifles ( not all considered "assault" rifles) 496 by hammers and 650 killed by knives. 98,000 were killed by medical malpractice. Wouldn't it be rational to go after what is killing the most people?
Issy January 11, 2013 at 09:47 PM
So are you saying that we can not act to reduce gun related crime until we can prevent deaths through malpractice? OR that we have to accept that having 20 first graders riddle with bullets is OK because 496 people were killed with hammers? (I am sure the parents will be glad to hear that one) If that is truly your argument as to why we can not enact common sense gun control then it really is a ridiculous one, not worthy of any rational consideration. Please tell me you were joking,
Mike January 11, 2013 at 10:54 PM
SCOTUS ruled in the Heller case that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Further, SCOTUS said The prefatory clause “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” merely announces a purpose. It does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In short, the Court ruled that the 2nd Ammend. connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms and does not require an individual to be part of a militia.
Harry One January 15, 2013 at 03:06 AM
I found one address the house was sold over a year ago the Journal news will be responsable for the new owner they printed the lies.
Teleman January 15, 2013 at 03:21 AM
The back door deals on new gun laws are being made now in the NYS senate. It must be done in the back room because they know most of what they are proposing is just complete nonsense. So far looks like registration of all guns, mandatory relicensing every 5 years, registration of long guns,basically eliminating semi-autos, magazine size reduced from 10 to 7, on and on.
Ann Fanizzi January 15, 2013 at 10:33 AM
Abbey - as an educator and former supervisor of special ed, I am more than interested in all aspects surrounding this tragic incident. And perhaps the police reports will shed some light pertinent to gun control, which you and I share.
bill of rights January 28, 2013 at 03:26 PM
jeff you are not as smart as you think you are. you are living in some fantasy world of assumptions. do some research before you go around telling people what they "need" to do.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »