richieveal wrote:
No, there are bad people in this world and they will do bad things. I will will run away if given the chance but if no other option is left I would use force.

When I lived in PA I had a CCW permit, did I have it on me at all times? No but there were times I did. The same would be here.

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Why not move to a pro gun State and avoid yourself the stress?

richieveal wrote:
I'll take my chances, I'd rather I fight for my life then wait for the cops to show up. I look forward to the day the courts rule for ccw.

user1111 wrote:
Quote:

Seagull wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Seagull wrote:
Quote:

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 ?

What you don't seem to understand is the fact that hardened criminals will carry guns illegally and they don't care about any of NJ's restrictive laws. They don't care about them AT ALL. It's not even a thought for them. They're going to carry guns, period. I think it's about time we allow the law-abiding citizens the same ability, and let them do it legally.

The only cowards are those that feel a need to carry a gun because they might run into some criminal that might also be carrying a gun, illegally.

Who is to ultimately say that the person you presume to be a criminal really isn?t? Maybe that person is also carrying a gun legally.

I would rather be judged by twelve than carried by six, so you can act like a child and call me a coward, but in the end, my constitutional right is being violated, and as with Illinois and California, NJ's carry laws will be found unconstitutional.

Concealed handguns are not an effective form of self-defense. A Nov. 2009 peer-reviewed study published in the American Journal of Public Health by Charles Branas, PhD, et al. found that someone carrying a gun for self-defense was 4.5 times more likely to be shot during an assault than an assault victim without a gun. Attackers often surprise victims, making it difficult to use a concealed handgun.

"Shall-issue" laws lead to increases in the rates of rape, robbery, and violent crime. A 1995 peer-reviewed study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by David McDowall, PhD, et al. of five urban cities found that gun homicide rates increased an average of 4.5% following the enactment of "shall-issue" laws. A May 2009 peer-reviewed study by Yale professors Ian Ayres, PhD, and John Donohue, PhD, that appeared in the Econ Journal Watch found that "shall-issue" laws increased aggravated assault between 1977 and 2006. Several researchers have found substantial flaws in the methodology of a landmark 1998 study by John Lott, PhD, and David Mustard, PhD, which claimed that more guns means less crime.

The Second Amendment of the US Constitution allows citizens to bear arms for a well-regulated militia, not for concealed personal carry. The Second Amendment statement "a well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" does not mention concealed handguns.

The Supreme Court's 5-4 majority decision in District of Columbia v. Heller reasoned that Second Amendment rights have limits and that bans on concealed carry have been legal. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the majority opinion: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited? [C]ommentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose? For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues."

Carrying a concealed handgun increases the chances of a confrontation escalating and turning lethal. The chances of a handgun being used inappropriately increase when normally responsible adults are intoxicated, tired, afraid, or untrained in conflict resolution.

Responsible adults can still be a threat to public safety if they are armed. Between 1996 and 2000, the Violence Policy Center found that concealed handgun permit holders in Texas were arrested for weapon-related offenses at a rate 81% higher than the general Texas population. Between May 2007 and Mar. 24, 2010, at least nine law enforcement officers and 142 private citizens were killed nationally by concealed handgun permit holders (approximately 0.003% of all murders in that time period).

user1111 wrote:
Quote:

Seagull wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Seagull wrote:
Quote:

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 ?

What you don't seem to understand is the fact that hardened criminals will carry guns illegally and they don't care about any of NJ's restrictive laws. They don't care about them AT ALL. It's not even a thought for them. They're going to carry guns, period. I think it's about time we allow the law-abiding citizens the same ability, and let them do it legally.

The only cowards are those that feel a need to carry a gun because they might run into some criminal that might also be carrying a gun, illegally.

Who is to ultimately say that the person you presume to be a criminal really isn?t? Maybe that person is also carrying a gun legally.

I would rather be judged by twelve than carried by six, so you can act like a child and call me a coward, but in the end, my constitutional right is being violated, and as with Illinois and California, NJ's carry laws will be found unconstitutional.

Concealed handguns are not an effective form of self-defense. A Nov. 2009 peer-reviewed study published in the American Journal of Public Health by Charles Branas, PhD, et al. found that someone carrying a gun for self-defense was 4.5 times more likely to be shot during an assault than an assault victim without a gun. Attackers often surprise victims, making it difficult to use a concealed handgun.

"Shall-issue" laws lead to increases in the rates of rape, robbery, and violent crime. A 1995 peer-reviewed study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by David McDowall, PhD, et al. of five urban cities found that gun homicide rates increased an average of 4.5% following the enactment of "shall-issue" laws. A May 2009 peer-reviewed study by Yale professors Ian Ayres, PhD, and John Donohue, PhD, that appeared in the Econ Journal Watch found that "shall-issue" laws increased aggravated assault between 1977 and 2006. Several researchers have found substantial flaws in the methodology of a landmark 1998 study by John Lott, PhD, and David Mustard, PhD, which claimed that more guns means less crime.

The Second Amendment of the US Constitution allows citizens to bear arms for a well-regulated militia, not for concealed personal carry. The Second Amendment statement "a well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" does not mention concealed handguns.

The Supreme Court's 5-4 majority decision in District of Columbia v. Heller reasoned that Second Amendment rights have limits and that bans on concealed carry have been legal. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the majority opinion: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited? [C]ommentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose? For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues."

Carrying a concealed handgun increases the chances of a confrontation escalating and turning lethal. The chances of a handgun being used inappropriately increase when normally responsible adults are intoxicated, tired, afraid, or untrained in conflict resolution.

Responsible adults can still be a threat to public safety if they are armed. Between 1996 and 2000, the Violence Policy Center found that concealed handgun permit holders in Texas were arrested for weapon-related offenses at a rate 81% higher than the general Texas population. Between May 2007 and Mar. 24, 2010, at least nine law enforcement officers and 142 private citizens were killed nationally by concealed handgun permit holders (approximately 0.003% of all murders in that time period).

devilsadvocate wrote:
You seem to think a coward is anyone who doesn't like to fight criminals with their bare hands. Thanks but no thanks, I'd rather not defend myself with my hands, but with a firearm. Why? Because a) I'm sure there are people who spend 3 hours/day at the gym and I don't, b) there are people younger/larger/stronger than me, and c) because a gun gives me an incredible advantage. I also like that my wife can take down a 6'2+ man in 5 seconds with one if necessary. If that makes me a coward then fine, but I'd like to be an armed coward who can defend myself against aggressors. I'd also like my cowardly wife to have the same advantage.

Insofar as moving because of laws, I'm fine with that approach if it is local in nature. For example, if the stupid gun laws were local to say, Jersey City but not Hoboken or vice versa then I'd live in the place with the laws I favor. But asking me to move to Texas when my job is in the Northeast doesn't really work for me or most other people.

Seagull wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Seagull wrote:
Quote:

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 ?

What you don't seem to understand is the fact that hardened criminals will carry guns illegally and they don't care about any of NJ's restrictive laws. They don't care about them AT ALL. It's not even a thought for them. They're going to carry guns, period. I think it's about time we allow the law-abiding citizens the same ability, and let them do it legally.

The only cowards are those that feel a need to carry a gun because they might run into some criminal that might also be carrying a gun, illegally.

Who is to ultimately say that the person you presume to be a criminal really isn?t? Maybe that person is also carrying a gun legally.

I would rather be judged by twelve than carried by six, so you can act like a child and call me a coward, but in the end, my constitutional right is being violated, and as with Illinois and California, NJ's carry laws will be found unconstitutional.

Seagull wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Seagull wrote:
Quote:

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 ?

What you don't seem to understand is the fact that hardened criminals will carry guns illegally and they don't care about any of NJ's restrictive laws. They don't care about them AT ALL. It's not even a thought for them. They're going to carry guns, period. I think it's about time we allow the law-abiding citizens the same ability, and let them do it legally.

The only cowards are those that feel a need to carry a gun because they might run into some criminal that might also be carrying a gun, illegally.

Who is to ultimately say that the person you presume to be a criminal really isn?t? Maybe that person is also carrying a gun legally.

I would rather be judged by twelve than carried by six, so you can act like a child and call me a coward, but in the end, my constitutional right is being violated, and as with Illinois and California, NJ's carry laws will be found unconstitutional.

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Seagull wrote:
Quote:

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 ?

What you don't seem to understand is the fact that hardened criminals will carry guns illegally and they don't care about any of NJ's restrictive laws. They don't care about them AT ALL. It's not even a thought for them. They're going to carry guns, period. I think it's about time we allow the law-abiding citizens the same ability, and let them do it legally.

The only cowards are those that feel a need to carry a gun because they might run into some criminal that might also be carrying a gun, illegally.

Who is to ultimately say that the person you presume to be a criminal really isn?t? Maybe that person is also carrying a gun legally.

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Seagull wrote:
Quote:

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 ?

What you don't seem to understand is the fact that hardened criminals will carry guns illegally and they don't care about any of NJ's restrictive laws. They don't care about them AT ALL. It's not even a thought for them. They're going to carry guns, period. I think it's about time we allow the law-abiding citizens the same ability, and let them do it legally.

The only cowards are those that feel a need to carry a gun because they might run into some criminal that might also be carrying a gun, illegally.

Who is to ultimately say that the person you presume to be a criminal really isn?t? Maybe that person is also carrying a gun legally.

Quote:

Monroe wrote:
In order to get a permit you need to prove no criminal background nor have a background with domestic violence. Before anyone could even think about getting a carry license they have to prove that they're upstanding citizen with an extensive background check.

Now compare that to the thugs and gangbangers walking around carrying heat daily here in JC.

Which group is likely to cause a 'carry' problem for you?

This isn?t accurate. You don?t need to prove anything. A background check is performed. This check merely looks to see if there are public records stating whether you have committed a crime.

If someone beats their spouse and it is never reported, that person can still obtain a firearm.

Personally, I find both groups to be a problem. The person that obtained the gun legally is clearly a coward since they feel the need to be defended by more than just their fists and wits. The criminal is also dangerous since they are unlikely to make the soundest judgments.

Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Why not move to a pro gun State and avoid yourself the stress? - Is it that hard to comprehend that some States (via their community) might not want 'everyone' with a gun walking the streets?

Personally I'd like a full psychological test be carried out on anyone that wants a gun - Once they pass, let them get what they want ... At least this would go a long way to weed out nutters - The military do it, as well as law enforcement!

In fairness, I would never advocate that people leave based on the disagreement of certain laws. Laws change, ideas change and tolerance changes.

You are correct about the psychological tests. I would also like to see a yearly renewal placed on a gun license. Who is to say that someone buying a gun at 20 doesn?t go and get hooked on drugs at 22? The fact that gun licenses are obtained for life is an issue.

Seagull wrote:
Quote:

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 ?

What you don't seem to understand is the fact that hardened criminals will carry guns illegally and they don't care about any of NJ's restrictive laws. They don't care about them AT ALL. It's not even a thought for them. They're going to carry guns, period. I think it's about time we allow the law-abiding citizens the same ability, and let them do it legally.

Monroe wrote:
In order to get a permit you need to prove no criminal background nor have a background with domestic violence. Before anyone could even think about getting a carry license they have to prove that they're upstanding citizen with an extensive background check.

Now compare that to the thugs and gangbangers walking around carrying heat daily here in JC.

Which group is likely to cause a 'carry' problem for you?

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Why not move to a pro gun State and avoid yourself the stress? - Is it that hard to comprehend that some States (via their community) might not want 'everyone' with a gun walking the streets?

Personally I'd like a full psychological test be carried out on anyone that wants a gun - Once they pass, let them get what they want ... At least this would go a long way to weed out nutters - The military do it, as well as law enforcement!

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Why not move to a pro gun State and avoid yourself the stress? - Is it that hard to comprehend that some States (via their community) might not want 'everyone' with a gun walking the streets?

Personally I'd like a full psychological test be carried out on anyone that wants a gun - Once they pass, let them get what they want ... At least this would go a long way to weed out nutters - The military do it, as well as law enforcement!

fat-ass-bike wrote:

Personally I'd like a full psychological test be carried out on anyone that wants a gun - Once they pass, let them get what they want ... At least this would go a long way to weed out nutters - The military do it, as well as law enforcement!

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Why not move to a pro gun State and avoid yourself the stress? - Is it that hard to comprehend that some States (via their community) might not want 'everyone' with a gun walking the streets?

Personally I'd like a full psychological test be carried out on anyone that wants a gun - Once they pass, let them get what they want ... At least this would go a long way to weed out nutters - The military do it, as well as law enforcement!

mrasg1 wrote:
Anywhere? Where can you have a weapon? Anywhere?
Anytime? In bars? Schools? Hospitals? Playgrounds?
Etc...etc...etc?

Seagull wrote:
...we have people like you [mrasg1] who for far too long have refused law-abiding citizens their constitutional right, but that time is now drawing to a close. Law-abiding citizens are tired of the criminals thinking they have the upper hand on society. I certainly think there should be limits to gun possession. How about we start with 20 year mandatory minimum sentences for criminals who go through illegal channels in order to obtain and carry a gun?

mrasg1 wrote:
I'm living in fear? Look in the mirror my
friend. Peace and good night.

mrasg1 wrote:
I don't want vigilante justice and to
live in the Wild West. Do YOU understand
THAT? There are no limits to gun possession
for some people. Damn.