mrasg1 wrote:
If you want to hunt and do it humanely and
it's for food not trophy? Fine. If you want
to defend yourself and family in your home ? Fine.
But no way in hell should anyone but law enforcement
on duty be allowed to carry a weapon as part of
their job. What's next? The asinine stand your ground law ?

Monroe wrote:
The big issue, legally, is whether putting up those onerous requirements are a dodge to avoid granting carry licenses.

And legally, many court decisions are coming in line with the 2nd Amendment....

Dolomiti wrote:
I seriously doubt NJ will be forced by the courts to allow concealed carry. Courts have repeatedly upheld NJ's laws.

I also am not too thrilled about other states interfering in New Jersey's laws. I cannot imagine they'd like it if NJ returned the favor. Though I guess it opens the door for Bloomberg's new org to work in whatever states he chooses....

In terms of its effectiveness, it should be screamingly obvious that CC does not reduce crime. In particular, NYC has strong gun restrictions, and the crime rate has been dropping steadily since the 1990s. NJ's crime rate has also fallen faster than national rates.

There are also several legal options for self defense, such as mace and pepper sprays. CC is also tough to get, but still available in NJ.

AlexC wrote:
I understand your question - I would want the right to carry just in case, in that one event, which hopefully may never happen. I only speak for myself. I have never felt superior if I am carrying a weapon, nor would I use a firearm offensively, only in the worst case scenario where there is no other recourse.

I have successfully negotiated out of violent confrontation by being reasonable, and tactful - this is my preferred method, but not everyone can be reasoned with.

borisp wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
As a human being that has actually had a gun pointed in my face close enough that I was looking down its barrel, I can unequivocally state that if I had a gun in my pocket, the result would have been the same or worse.

Non sequitur. If you are not able to use a gun for self-defense it follows that you should not carry a gun. Nobody forces you. Nobody even asks you to carry. But if a gun in your hands would make the situation worse, it does not follow that everybody is the same way. It doesn't mean that we should deny the right of defense to others. Like this woman, or this man, or this, or this, or this, or this. Would you rather they were disarmed?

Also, I have to say that every time you post a comment like this, and then it ends with your standard sign-off line about winners and losers, - it looks positively hilarious.

borisp wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
You don?t see how Vermont?s size doesn?t come into play? You don?t think that density plays a factor?

Not until I see a study that shows that density does play a factor. If density were that madness-inducing, we'd seen some other effects in NYC, - like people fighting with tire irons in traffic, or trying to smash their cars into others or whatnot.

borisp wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
I think you should get the difference between ?than? and ?then? correct before you could even grasp the idea of informing me about anything.

I was born in the USSR and for the first 30 years or so I was speaking Russian almost exclusively. Eventually my grammar will be perfect. What you've got is much harder to fix.

borisp wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
I think we would all be better in a hypothetical world where guns did not exist.

Oh, man. REALLY? This is so sad. How is that a hypothetical world? The firearms became ubiquitous only about 200 years ago.

Second, do you really think that there were no crime and no violence before the guns were invented?! Or, do you think it was better for the victims before they could defend themselves?

Pebble wrote:
As a human being that has actually had a gun pointed in my face close enough that I was looking down its barrel, I can unequivocally state that if I had a gun in my pocket, the result would have been the same or worse.

Pebble wrote:
You don?t see how Vermont?s size doesn?t come into play? You don?t think that density plays a factor?

Pebble wrote:
I think you should get the difference between ?than? and ?then? correct before you could even grasp the idea of informing me about anything.

JCMan8 wrote:
I think we would all be better in a hypothetical world where guns did not exist.

mrasg1 wrote:
As the great philosopher Lynyrd Skynyrd said: "Well hand guns are made for killin' They ain't no good for nothin' else

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

AlexC wrote:
I would arm myself in the hope of protecting my life in the extreme scenario. I would prefer not to carry firearms, it's uncomfortable and scary, even after years of doing it. I would not try to be a hero because I'm armed - far from it, most carriers actually try to avoid any kind of confrontation because they are armed. Who wants to deal with the shit that comes with drawing your weapon? I am talking about when my life hangs in the balance - this is the only time where I would draw my weapon.

How many times in your civilian life can you say that you've ever been in that situation where you are in a life or death scenario in which owning a gun would have saved your life? Since you are presently alive now, I would say that the scenarios are zero.

I'm not questioning your desire to keep your family safe. I only question the amount of times in which you would actually need a hand gun.

Maybe this is just a feeling I get from those I have spoken to in person on this, but my impression is that the desire is to intimidate in situations where there could be a minor amount of danger. That, to me, is cowardice.

AlexC wrote:
I would arm myself in the hope of protecting my life in the extreme scenario. I would prefer not to carry firearms, it's uncomfortable and scary, even after years of doing it. I would not try to be a hero because I'm armed - far from it, most carriers actually try to avoid any kind of confrontation because they are armed. Who wants to deal with the shit that comes with drawing your weapon? I am talking about when my life hangs in the balance - this is the only time where I would draw my weapon.

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Pebble, focusing on legal gun owners who hardly commit any crimes vs the vast majority of illegal gun owning criminals is EXACTLY ignoring the real problem, and by a huge degree.

How often do we read about legal gun owners committing crimes in comparison? Hardly ever.

I won't parry your simple Cro-Magnon comment with a simpleton one towards you, however. Oops, I just did!

I apologize but I?m not as simple as you. I can equally think that criminals shouldn?t have guns as well as those ?law-abiding? carry them in a concealed manner.

Quote:

AlexC wrote:
Quote:

Yes, really. As a human being that has actually had a gun pointed in my face close enough that I was looking down its barrel, I can unequivocally state that if I had a gun in my pocket, the result would have been the same or worse.

I don?t believe that anyone else in this thread has ever been faced with such a situation. All of these phony John Waynes really can bite it. The garbage argument that the guy that died wouldn?t have if he had a gun is just that. The reality is that the guy would not only still be dead, but the criminals would have ended up with one more gun in their hands.

Maybe that would be the case with you, because you don't own a gun, constantly train with it in simulated real-life scenarios (Simunitions, IDPA). Criminals such as that scum will never expect a civilian to shoot back.

btw - I've had assault rifles pointed at me on more than one occasion in my two field assignments in Cambodia, but being in a UN Civilian Mission I was not officially allowed to have weapons.

Military duty is vastly different than that on the street. I may not be trained to engage in hand gun shootouts, but from experience these don?t end well.

My experience with a gun was simple, I walked into a place to watch a live musical performance. The place had just finished getting robbed and the guy was walking out. He saw new people walking in and shoved the gun in my face to demand money. Given that the place was a crowded bar, let?s say that there are concealed carry laws. Who is foolish enough to pull out a gun to threaten the man that already has the gun pointed in someone?s face? Or maybe you care so little for my life, as the current target, that you would feel as though pulling your gun will only result in my death with the criminal pulls the trigger. Maybe I?m the person with the concealed gun. Since the gun is already in my face prior to my knowledge of what is even occurring, how do you think the situation would change if I sudden reached for my hidden holster?

I?ve stated before that my issue isn?t with guns. I?ve won state competitions for my own marksmanship. However, the concept of people carrying guns does not result in a net positive. It only results in more people with guns. Personally, I find those that want to carry a gun with them a coward.

JCMan8 wrote:
I think we would all be better in a hypothetical world where guns did not exist. But that is not the world we live in. Criminals with guns (I think mostly obtained illegally) are rampant.

Although I have no plans to ever own a gun, I don't have a problem with concealed carry laws allowing law abiding citizens to protect themselves from criminals. Those people are going to get guns whether we like it or not so be realistic.

As far as I know, the statistics show that gun control laws do not reduce the instance with criminals with guns. I also believe statistics show that violent crime drops in areas that allow for concealed carry.

The talk about concealed carry leading to the Wild West is fear mongering hyperbole that has no basis in fact. So I would vote for a concealed carry law.

Monroe wrote:
Pebble, focusing on legal gun owners who hardly commit any crimes vs the vast majority of illegal gun owning criminals is EXACTLY ignoring the real problem, and by a huge degree.

How often do we read about legal gun owners committing crimes in comparison? Hardly ever.

I won't parry your simple Cro-Magnon comment with a simpleton one towards you, however. Oops, I just did!

AlexC wrote:
Quote:

Yes, really. As a human being that has actually had a gun pointed in my face close enough that I was looking down its barrel, I can unequivocally state that if I had a gun in my pocket, the result would have been the same or worse.

I don?t believe that anyone else in this thread has ever been faced with such a situation. All of these phony John Waynes really can bite it. The garbage argument that the guy that died wouldn?t have if he had a gun is just that. The reality is that the guy would not only still be dead, but the criminals would have ended up with one more gun in their hands.

Maybe that would be the case with you, because you don't own a gun, constantly train with it in simulated real-life scenarios (Simunitions, IDPA). Criminals such as that scum will never expect a civilian to shoot back.

btw - I've had assault rifles pointed at me on more than one occasion in my two field assignments in Cambodia, but being in a UN Civilian Mission I was not officially allowed to have weapons.

Yes, really. As a human being that has actually had a gun pointed in my face close enough that I was looking down its barrel, I can unequivocally state that if I had a gun in my pocket, the result would have been the same or worse.

I don?t believe that anyone else in this thread has ever been faced with such a situation. All of these phony John Waynes really can bite it. The garbage argument that the guy that died wouldn?t have if he had a gun is just that. The reality is that the guy would not only still be dead, but the criminals would have ended up with one more gun in their hands.

AlexC wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Yup, not one compelling argument made in favor of this nonsense. The stupidity of this idea astounds me.

really? in a life and death scenario such as the Short Hills Mall robbery/murder, the victim might have lived had he or his wife were armed(and of course trained in the use of handguns). I just want a fighting chance in such an extreme scenario where I might have to take someone else's life - I would rather be alive.

Monroe wrote:
Not a single state that has gone for right to carry has repealed the legislation-ever, it's so well liked. And Florida's gun crimes dropped by a third during a period in which there was a 90% rise in carry permits.

Somehow the anti-gun nuts don't mind criminals being armed (because they will) but object to upstanding citizens having the same right.

borisp wrote:
Quote:

CatDog wrote:
The entire state of Vermont has the same population as Hudson County. Not to mention everything else that's different. Vermont doesn't have low crime because everyone carries guns, and everyone carrying guns here isn't going to turn NJ into a paradise. Knock it off with this dumb fixation on Vermont.

I don't see how the size of Vermont comes into play. Pebble suggested here that freedom to carry means that people "shooting each other here over loud stereos and texting during movie previews" - if that were true, it would have been happening in Vermont, since they enjoy an almost unrestricted right to carry.

Also, if you have some sort of predisposition against Vermont, I can give you other examples. We can even look beyond the USA and find an example in Europe with heavily armed population that doesn't try to massacre each other: in Switzerland people actually take home their service rifle after they are done with their army service.

borisp wrote:
Quote:

Frank_M wrote:
It?s not fair to ask hypothetical questions, but there?s no harm in asking yourself: If the Second Amendment did not exist, and illegal gun ownership and gun crime was as common as it is today, what reasons could you cite for the importance of adding such a provision to the Constitution? How challenging would it be to make a rational case that serves the best interests of the public? What about the other Amendments?

Now I am puzzled. Is this not a part of the US history class? Did they not teach about the argument between the federalists and anti-federalists in your high-schools? Is "Federalist Papers" not a required reading?!

Anyways, while you are at it, here is yet another question that "there is no harm in asking yourself": what was the name of the first anti-gun organization in the USA?

An answer is here: "In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired restoration of white supremacy. Its purposes were political, but political in the broadest sense, for it sought to affect power relations, both public and private, throughout Southern society. It aimed to reverse the interlocking changes sweeping over the South during Reconstruction: to destroy the Republican party's infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state, reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial subordination in every aspect of Southern life... To that end they worked to curb the education, economic advancement, voting rights, and right to keep and bear arms of blacks"

Yes, Klan, The Original Gun Controllers.

borisp wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Yup, not one compelling argument made in favor of this nonsense. The stupidity of this idea astounds me.

You have been informed that the right of self-defense is a natural right and Constitutionally protected at that. If you do not find that compelling than being astounded is something you should get used to, for the wonders will never seize.

CatDog wrote:
The entire state of Vermont has the same population as Hudson County. Not to mention everything else that's different. Vermont doesn't have low crime because everyone carries guns, and everyone carrying guns here isn't going to turn NJ into a paradise. Knock it off with this dumb fixation on Vermont.

Frank_M wrote:
It?s not fair to ask hypothetical questions, but there?s no harm in asking yourself: If the Second Amendment did not exist, and illegal gun ownership and gun crime was as common as it is today, what reasons could you cite for the importance of adding such a provision to the Constitution? How challenging would it be to make a rational case that serves the best interests of the public? What about the other Amendments?

Pebble wrote:
Yup, not one compelling argument made in favor of this nonsense. The stupidity of this idea astounds me.

Pebble wrote:
Yup, not one compelling argument made in favor of this nonsense. The stupidity of this idea astounds me.

MDM wrote:
Quote:

Vigilante wrote:

Florida is like #4 in violent crime and all those citizen crime-fighters seem to be shooting the wrong people.

Had 1/2 hour to kill this morning, so out of curiosity I looked up some stats:

Florida Murder Rate (2012, per 100k): 5.2 (17th)
The state with the lowest rate was New Hampshire of 1.1/100k.

I grabbed stats from and Anti-CCW group Violence Policy Center. Including homicides (both convicted & or only indicted) and accidental shooting deaths for 2008 - 2012, but excluding suicides I counted 37 deaths (Dunn was included in the count). Which is an average of 7.4 per year.

The average number of permit holders during that period was 725,301.

Total permit holder causing an unlawful or accidental death: 0.001% per year or a rate of 1.02/100k.
To put that in perspective, Northern Europe (UK, Sweden, Norway, etc.) average murder rate is 1.5/100k. Western Europe is 1.0/100k.

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

drifterx wrote:
Or you could get the staff to do something about it instead. We all feel like shooting people over every little argument but when it comes time to pay for the consequences, we don't want to end up somewhere that absolves us of our stupidity because the law says so.

Good thing there are no states or laws that allow people to kill others over every little argument and then be absolved of their stupidity. Even Florida, which has been targeted in this thread, will prosecute such folk. Just read about Michael Dunn.

sepecat wrote:
This is goes against my constitutional right...

sepecat wrote:
Hopefully the Court will make it legal for a law biding citizen to carry in NJ. I also want the court to do away with the process one has to go through to get a handgun (which you cant take outside your home). I will not write an essay to the chief of police to get a handgun permit.. This is goes against my constitutional right to bear arms.