Gun violence

new York had the "zero carry" law.
Since when?
I'm an ex -new yorker. Everyone I worked with carried. The only place that was difficult was NYC. You had to show a reason. So what does everyone do? Make a few large bank deposits and show them the statements. Done.

In Ma. which has strict gun laws it was even easier. A one or two page application, a couple references, a safety class, and I have an unrestricted full carry.

Out of curiousity, How many times have you been in a situation where you thought to yourself that you needed a gun?
For me personally there have been several but its always been related to what I do and the situations I'm put in.
 
Yes, Northern Ireland is roman Catholic, and you know how picky they are. I think Scotland has a different law, not sure on that.
Col
Well Col, now the US has what the UK had. States that want to ban or restrict to a certain period can now do that. Roe vs Wade had absolutely no restrictions. Thats most of the southern US want to ban or restrict but they aren't Catholic.
 
Since when?
I'm an ex -new yorker. Everyone I worked with carried. The only place that was difficult was NYC. You had to show a reason. So what does everyone do? Make a few large bank deposits and show them the statements. Done.
So is your opinion that the petitioners were wrong, that it's actually quite easy to get the permit? I've never lived there nor tried, so I have no personal experience.
So ... is your argument then, that actually it's very easy for anyone to get the permit, and also, the law is working well as a form of gun control?
Sorry, I haven't heard this angle yet, so not sure how to respond.

To me, neither party (New York nor the people denied the permit) seemed to be arguing that. The person denied the permit was obviously denied, and the State seemed to want to keep whatever it had going - which must have been something other than 'anybody can get it', else they wouldn't be fighting over it.

Out of curiousity, How many times have you been in a situation where you thought to yourself that you needed a gun?

It's pretty hard to remember a lifetime of close calls in a moment while sitting here posting.
My wife and daughter have been followed (beyond what could be coincidence) while driving several times. Does it count? I guess that's a matter of opinion. Nothing happened to them, but I count it on the side of I would rather they have a gun in the glove compartment while driving. My wife had an occasion where a "locksmith" tried to force a door open when I wasn't there - and after her pushing back on the door and him pushing it forward - for a loooong period, like 60 seconds....he said "I must have the wrong house". Might she have needed a gun? Maybe, who's to say? I'd rather be on the safe side.
Can I prove it? Of course not - nobody can prove the "value" (subjective) of the gun until/unless they actually pull the trigger and prevent an attack.

I've had maybe a tiny handful of road rage close calls, but never been attacked.

But does my experience matter all that much? We can all read headlines from our local resident metro area and deduce what is happening to people, I take that into consideration.

It's like insurance. Have you ever needed life insurance yet? Do you still have it? :p

As I stated earlier, here in Phoenix, a homeowner just had to shoot and kill 2 intruders within the last 24 hours. I'm not that homeowner, but that doesn't mean I couldn't be. It's a small chance, but everyone likes peace of mind and I have no small children in the house, so why not?

I like to carry one loaded in my glove compartment too, although my wife doesn't (she has no idea why though, just "worries").
Obviously if I drove to another state, I would triple-check whether that state allowed a loaded concealed vehicle gun, or a permit, before doing so.
 
Well Col, now the US has what the UK had. States that want to ban or restrict to a certain period can now do that. Roe vs Wade had absolutely no restrictions. Thats most of the southern US want to ban or restrict but they aren't Catholic.
I just heard a Louisiana judge blocked an abortion ban.
Can anyone say "constitutional crisis" ? Or maybe there's a better term when the authority says "No", and the subject says "make me".
 
All I can say is if a criminal enters a "gun free" zone, he can feel pretty safe that he's the only one carrying. How's that for logic? The honest people obey the law but the criminal does not. Does anyone on the left think there is anything wrong with that picture. I doubt many gun ranges have a problem with robberies or mass shootings because everyone there would shoot back.
 
Just out of interest. Here in the UK, there was a farmer who had a licenced shotgun (as most farmers have). A young lad broke into his house, and the farmer shot him, he died. The farmer got 7 years in prison.
There's been mention here about the homeowner shooting an intruder. Those of you that own a gun, at what point would you shoot if you heard an intruder. I mean, would you shout a warning, would you shoot to maim, or shoot to deliberately kill and take another life?
Col
 
A young lad broke into his house, and the farmer shot him, he died. The farmer got 7 years in prison.
Are you saying if someone breaks into your house, you cannot shoot them, or is there an "escalation" protocol to follow?
 
I've often thought that I might try some yelling first, and failing that, even shoot a round into my couch to let the intruder know that actual bullets were forthcoming. Failing that, I think I'd take the next step and aim not to miss.

Of course, in the real moment, I like most people don't know precisely how I would react. It's also possible that if someone came crashing through my window in the middle of the night the first thing I'd do is shoot them - knowing I may only have seconds left before being attacked.

We have a castle doctrine - came from your country actually - that generally protects residents from liability if someone intrudes into your home.
I'm guessing there was more detail to the farmer story than you posted.

Even our doctrine comes with plenty of caveats about what led up to the shooting - the shooters hands must otherwise be clean, or clean-ish.
 
I think that because there was such an outcry for the farmer, the law was changed and the defender would not be accused of murder but of manslaughter instead.
It's interesting about the comments on what you would do. It seems that an unarmed opportunistic teenage intruder would likely end up dead or severely injured. I suppose that's fair as they could have a hidden weapon and you may only get seconds to decide what to do. Very difficult.
Col
 
It seems that an unarmed opportunistic teenage intruder would likely end up dead or severely injured.
Or it could be your kid coming home late from the bar, was locked out and didn't want to wake you.

Does anyone on the left think there is anything wrong with that picture.
Yea, the thing that is wrong is that the criminal was able to get a gun in the first place. Do you know where they get them? For one they steal them from legal gun owners who dont take any precautions like locking them up. I have a lot of gun cases and a majority of the guns are stolen down south and transported north. There are also a lot that originated in missouri where anyone can buy a gun. The latest trend is build your own. All the parts are available online. you just have to assemble it.

I've had maybe a tiny handful of road rage close calls, but never been attacked.
So you'd have no objection to the other raging party having a concealed weapon? No question as to his mental stability?

As far as the ny case I haven't really read it other than it has to do with a showing for the need to carry. As far as getting a license for your home or target they are relatively easy to come by.

If I may borrow your argument from the abortion issue, the guy who was denied a permit should just move to another place, right?
 
Or it could be your kid coming home late from the bar, was locked out and didn't want to wake you.
Crashing through my patio glass??
The person with the gun is still allowed to exercise their brain cells and show some judgment
 
So you'd have no objection to the other raging party having a concealed weapon? No question as to his mental stability?
If you're asking whether I would rather that we both carry then neither, you're correct, the answer is both.
 
the guy who was denied a permit should just move to another place, right
Can you point me to the Post where I suggested that?

One issue is a constitutional right and must be enforced nationwide. The other one isn't.
 
For one they steal them from legal gun owners who dont take any precautions like locking them up.
Typical. Punish the innocent instead of the guilty.

Why are cities like NYC letting criminals walk on gun charges? It seems to me, if you want to stop gun crime, you punish the people committing a crime while carrying a weapon. You don't let them off because they're "victims". You throw the book at them with mandatory sentences. No one has to commit a crime and they certainly don't need to be armed. People make choices. Why do you want to be soft on them? Because the optics will be bad when we check the boxes as we count the criminals who committed the crimes? If the criminal is carrying a stolen weapon, prosecute them for stealing the weapon also:)
 
Punish the innocent instead of the guilty.
Many states have specific laws as to gun storage. Failing to follow it is a crime.

The ruling may actually make it easier for criminals to carry guns as it effects the probable cause issues the police rely upon to arrest them for illegally possessing weapons.
 
But committing a crime while carrying a gun is not:) I get it:)

Like in Seattle where defacing a building with graffiti is not a crime (even when they have you on video and can identify you) but not removing the graffiti in a timely manner is so the building owner becomes the criminal :):):(

This is the law in a banana republic. They choose who is the criminal and who is not.
 
If the law allows a person to carry a concealed gun on the pavement (sidewalk), but not in shops, restaurants or schools etc. What procedure is in place to check someone hasn't a small gun when they enter these places? Maybe some sort of airport thing you walk through?
Col
They don't have anything. And some stores like IKEA won't let police officers in
 
All I can say is if a criminal enters a "gun free" zone, he can feel pretty safe that he's the only one carrying. How's that for logic? The honest people obey the law but the criminal does not. Does anyone on the left think there is anything wrong with that picture. I doubt many gun ranges have a problem with robberies or mass shootings because everyone there would shoot back.
I was at the range last week to get a gift card for hubby for father's day. I jokenly asked the employee if they have a problem with smash and grab. She laughed.
 
Just out of interest. Here in the UK, there was a farmer who had a licenced shotgun (as most farmers have). A young lad broke into his house, and the farmer shot him, he died. The farmer got 7 years in prison.
There's been mention here about the homeowner shooting an intruder. Those of you that own a gun, at what point would you shoot if you heard an intruder. I mean, would you shout a warning, would you shoot to maim, or shoot to deliberately kill and take another life?
Col
A warning shot, center mass.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom