Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
53 user(s) are online (38 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 53

more...




Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users




(1) 2 3 4 5 »


Re: Concealed carry coming to NJ?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/3/29 21:43
Last Login :
2023/9/5 18:27
From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1980
Offline
Quote:

JPhurst wrote:
Cert denied, thank G-d.

Yup!

There is no bigger proof of this being a mess than the nonsense going on in Nevada. When the militias came in everyone thought it was awesome. Now they are drawing guns on each other because they are all scared of each other. It's such a shame we can't have this!

Posted on: 2014/5/5 20:02
Dos A Cero
 Top 


Re: Concealed carry coming to NJ?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2005/6/8 3:24
Last Login :
2022/11/28 0:04
From New Urbanist Area
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1429
Offline
Cert denied, thank G-d.

Posted on: 2014/5/5 19:10
 Top 


Re: Concealed carry coming to NJ?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2014/3/4 22:31
Last Login :
2019/8/30 19:03
From Downtown Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 820
Offline
Boris, your sarcasm meter is broken.

Posted on: 2014/3/14 3:38
 Top 


Re: Concealed carry coming to NJ?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/5/29 3:09
Last Login :
2019/10/31 13:04
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 727
Offline
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

A reasonable and totally unbiased article. Any other propaganda you'd like to share with us? Should I be posting retorts from right wing talk shows?


Really? Well, let's read.
First, this article uses disparaging name-calling like "gun lobby" in the very subtitle. And yet you call it "unbiased"? I wonder what your definition of bias is.

Second, let me go for the "Myth #2", being "debunked" with a nice plot of "gun deaths" against gun ownership. Consider New Jersey and Montana. On the Mother Jones' graph New Jersey is the happy state in the bottom left corner. No guns! And only about 5 "gun-related deaths" per 100,000 people. On the opposite side of the graph, in the upper-right, - Wyoming. SIX times more guns than in new Jersey! And about 18 gun-related deaths. Isn't it the solidest proof?!

Well, let's see. Let's take a look at the FBI "murder and non-negligent homicide" statistics, shall we? New Jersey 4.4, Wyoming 2.4

Wait, WHAT? How can it be that in Wyoming there is only 2.4 murders per 100,000 people when Mother Jones tells us that there are 18 "gun-related deaths"? How can it be, oh how can it be?! Simple. "Gun related deaths" means that if someone commits a murder with a knife, - we do not count it in. On the other hand, if someone tries to commit a murder and the victim justifiably shoots him, - it is counted as a "gun-related death".

Using "gun related deaths" number instead of a "murder" number is not just wrong. "Gun-related deaths" statistics is designed to make a state with a knife murder look better than the state where the murder was prevented. There is not one single good reason to use it.

The rest of Mother Jones arguments are of the same quality. However, I picked this one - because it is easy to notice. The rest of them you need to do some digging. The fact that they use "gun-related deaths" saves us time. When you see some long piece with "10 gazzilions arguments against guns", - and you notice that the person is using the "gun-related deaths" numbers, - you do not need to read the rest. You know that you are being lied to. You know that the author is a fraud who manipulates statistics to distort the reality. Why bother?


Posted on: 2014/3/14 3:05
 Top 


Re: Concealed carry coming to NJ?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/5/15 14:11
Last Login :
2020/10/5 21:44
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4652
Offline
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

A reasonable and totally unbiased article. Any other propaganda you'd like to share with us? Should I be posting retorts from right wing talk shows?


Mother Jones-fair and balanced! Isn't there a good Daily Kos link too??

Posted on: 2014/3/13 23:53
 Top 


Re: Concealed carry coming to NJ?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2014/3/4 22:31
Last Login :
2019/8/30 19:03
From Downtown Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 820
Offline
Quote:

A reasonable and totally unbiased article. Any other propaganda you'd like to share with us? Should I be posting retorts from right wing talk shows?

Posted on: 2014/3/13 22:49
 Top 


Re: Concealed carry coming to NJ?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/8/15 21:22
Last Login :
2016/3/22 21:14
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 435
Offline

Posted on: 2014/3/13 22:38
 Top 


Re: Concealed carry coming to NJ?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/7/1 16:39
Last Login :
2014/12/15 23:01
Group:
Banned
Posts: 1072
Offline
Pebbles, you've given us nothing but strawman after strawman. It's almost comical to see it come from you of all people.

Posted on: 2014/3/13 22:04
 Top 


Re: Concealed carry coming to NJ?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2014/3/4 22:31
Last Login :
2019/8/30 19:03
From Downtown Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 820
Offline
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
I'm not sure if the anti-CC folks have more impressive arguments than have been used on this thread. But from what I can tell they have three types of arguments:

1. Fear-mongering hyperbole - We don't want New Jersey to turn into the "Wild West!" People will be shooting at each other in the streets over petty disagreements!

This is demonstrably false as shown by the numerous studies finding that enacting CC laws either reduces violent crime or has no discernible effect.

For an example, see this link: "Lott listed 18 studies that found [CC] laws reduced violent crime, ten that said it has no discernible effect and one that found it increased violent crime."

"The debate has been between those who say that it reduces crime and those who say it has no effect," he noted. ?Very few debates are divided that way.?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/f ... 54-580638ede391_blog.html

This is not a valid set of statistics. The issue is not whether ?violent crime? rises or falls. The issue is over gun related incidents in public.

Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
2. Anecdotal evidence - Look at this legal gun owner in Florida or Alabama who improperly shot someone! This never would have happened without CC! Clearly the risk of harm to all of society is too great because of these isolated incidents, we cannot allow CC.

Again, while the anecdotes themselves are correct, the intended inference (see #1) is not. The studies are largely in agreement that allowing CC does not allow violent crime to rise.

As mentioned by my response to number 1, the guy that accidentally shoots a passenger in his pickup (a link I provided earlier) isn?t classified as a ?violent crime?. The weapon was discharged accidentally.

Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
3. Name calling/I feel safe without a gun so that means no one should have the option! - These are essentially the same argument, the first is just an immature way of expressing it. The person thinks it is "unnecessary" for themselves to carry a gun so this means no one else in the state should be able to have the option.

This is essentially an extreme nanny state type argument. We know that allowing CC will not cause the violent crime rate to be raised. Maybe some people subconsciously disregard this or are unaware and think along the lines of guns = danger so more guns on the street = more danger. But this has been proven to be false.

I think part of this argument is simply people wanting to impose their personal beliefs and preferences onto everyone else. But legislation should not work that way, especially when a Constitutional freedom is involved.

Also, it is arrogant and closed-minded to assume your set of experiences can represent all possible scenarios one can face, and because you personally never feel in any danger when outside that means no one has this right. For example, the man who is appealing his court case to the Supreme Court (why this thread was created) is a business owner who owns and services ATMs. He told the Star Ledger he sometimes carries large amounts of cash and he wants to carry a gun during his work for protection. I think this person should be able to have the option to protect himself and it is simply ridiculous that the government will not allow it (but would if he were a retired cop).

For these reasons, I think the anti CC folks are on the wrong side of history and this will be proven in the near to intermediate future.

I don?t disagree with the confusion over why an ex-police officer can carry a gun while a guy that handles money on a daily basis cannot.

I also never argued that it should be illegal because only cowards would be running out to get conceal-carry permits. I merely pointed out that it is those that will be doing such. I make no pretense that this will dissuade anyone. I find the psychology behind it interesting.

No argument has ever been ?I?m safe you should be too!? I?ve asked the pointed question about how people have been unable to live this long with a gun. How is it possible that all of these people that absolutely need a CCW have been able to live, breathe and walk through the streets of where they live without it?

As noted in a video I linked earlier? a gun as an offensive weapon. Its purpose is to strike and render dead the target. If the user is hindered prior to its use, the weapon is useless. If a person is assaulted and struck on the street, say the knockout game, a gun will provide no defense. The attack occurred and the perpetrators are gone well before a gun could be pulled out. If someone walks up and sticks a gun in your face or the face of a loved one, will pulling out a gun immediately calm the situation or increase the stress levels?

Ultimately, it is a show of force. It is the psychological backbone provided to the weak.

Quote:

Monroe wrote:
It's interesting to me that people who use the argument of being on the wrong side of history re:gay marriage, and use the argument of 'don't want gay marriage? don't marry someone gay' seem to feel exactly 180 degrees when it comes to concealed carry using the same points.

It is always great to read a complete hatchet job of a point getting made?


Your preferred metric of gun crime would ignore 1. substitution effect (i.e. a guy commits suicide with a gun instead of pills or would commit a murder with a gun instead of a knife) and 2. any potential reduction in violent crimes due to CCW. So I can see why you would prefer it. As to accidents, sure, accidents happen. That's kind of life. They happen with cars (one of our youth's top killers), hobbies (skiing, skydiving, football), even stuff like lawnmowers.

As to your usual declarations of people who defend themselves as cowardly, hilarious though that is, I'm going to ignore it because frankly, they're silly and boring. I will note though that no one is saying they can't live without a gun. They are saying they would prefer to carry one. Many of us actually already own them and carry a knife, fore example, but it would be nice to carry our guns too.

Posted on: 2014/3/13 21:32
 Top 


Re: Concealed carry coming to NJ?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/3/29 21:43
Last Login :
2023/9/5 18:27
From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1980
Offline
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
I'm not sure if the anti-CC folks have more impressive arguments than have been used on this thread. But from what I can tell they have three types of arguments:

1. Fear-mongering hyperbole - We don't want New Jersey to turn into the "Wild West!" People will be shooting at each other in the streets over petty disagreements!

This is demonstrably false as shown by the numerous studies finding that enacting CC laws either reduces violent crime or has no discernible effect.

For an example, see this link: "Lott listed 18 studies that found [CC] laws reduced violent crime, ten that said it has no discernible effect and one that found it increased violent crime."

"The debate has been between those who say that it reduces crime and those who say it has no effect," he noted. ?Very few debates are divided that way.?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/f ... 54-580638ede391_blog.html

This is not a valid set of statistics. The issue is not whether ?violent crime? rises or falls. The issue is over gun related incidents in public.

Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
2. Anecdotal evidence - Look at this legal gun owner in Florida or Alabama who improperly shot someone! This never would have happened without CC! Clearly the risk of harm to all of society is too great because of these isolated incidents, we cannot allow CC.

Again, while the anecdotes themselves are correct, the intended inference (see #1) is not. The studies are largely in agreement that allowing CC does not allow violent crime to rise.

As mentioned by my response to number 1, the guy that accidentally shoots a passenger in his pickup (a link I provided earlier) isn?t classified as a ?violent crime?. The weapon was discharged accidentally.

Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
3. Name calling/I feel safe without a gun so that means no one should have the option! - These are essentially the same argument, the first is just an immature way of expressing it. The person thinks it is "unnecessary" for themselves to carry a gun so this means no one else in the state should be able to have the option.

This is essentially an extreme nanny state type argument. We know that allowing CC will not cause the violent crime rate to be raised. Maybe some people subconsciously disregard this or are unaware and think along the lines of guns = danger so more guns on the street = more danger. But this has been proven to be false.

I think part of this argument is simply people wanting to impose their personal beliefs and preferences onto everyone else. But legislation should not work that way, especially when a Constitutional freedom is involved.

Also, it is arrogant and closed-minded to assume your set of experiences can represent all possible scenarios one can face, and because you personally never feel in any danger when outside that means no one has this right. For example, the man who is appealing his court case to the Supreme Court (why this thread was created) is a business owner who owns and services ATMs. He told the Star Ledger he sometimes carries large amounts of cash and he wants to carry a gun during his work for protection. I think this person should be able to have the option to protect himself and it is simply ridiculous that the government will not allow it (but would if he were a retired cop).

For these reasons, I think the anti CC folks are on the wrong side of history and this will be proven in the near to intermediate future.

I don?t disagree with the confusion over why an ex-police officer can carry a gun while a guy that handles money on a daily basis cannot.

I also never argued that it should be illegal because only cowards would be running out to get conceal-carry permits. I merely pointed out that it is those that will be doing such. I make no pretense that this will dissuade anyone. I find the psychology behind it interesting.

No argument has ever been ?I?m safe you should be too!? I?ve asked the pointed question about how people have been unable to live this long with a gun. How is it possible that all of these people that absolutely need a CCW have been able to live, breathe and walk through the streets of where they live without it?

As noted in a video I linked earlier? a gun as an offensive weapon. Its purpose is to strike and render dead the target. If the user is hindered prior to its use, the weapon is useless. If a person is assaulted and struck on the street, say the knockout game, a gun will provide no defense. The attack occurred and the perpetrators are gone well before a gun could be pulled out. If someone walks up and sticks a gun in your face or the face of a loved one, will pulling out a gun immediately calm the situation or increase the stress levels?

Ultimately, it is a show of force. It is the psychological backbone provided to the weak.

Quote:

Monroe wrote:
It's interesting to me that people who use the argument of being on the wrong side of history re:gay marriage, and use the argument of 'don't want gay marriage? don't marry someone gay' seem to feel exactly 180 degrees when it comes to concealed carry using the same points.

It is always great to read a complete hatchet job of a point getting made?

Posted on: 2014/3/13 21:19
Dos A Cero
 Top 


Re: Concealed carry coming to NJ?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/5/15 14:11
Last Login :
2020/10/5 21:44
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4652
Offline
Gun background check applications up 40%. It sounds like people are taking a stand.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2014 ... control.html#incart_river

Posted on: 2014/3/13 14:17
 Top 


Re: Concealed carry coming to NJ?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/11/10 20:38
Last Login :
2018/2/1 3:02
From JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3071
Offline
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:

I'm not sure if the anti-CC folks have more impressive arguments than have been used on this thread. But from what I can tell they have three types of arguments:

1. Fear-mongering hyperbole - We don't want New Jersey to turn into the "Wild West!" People will be shooting at each other in the streets over petty disagreements!

This is demonstrably false as shown by the numerous studies finding that enacting CC laws either reduces violent crime or has no discernible effect.

For an example, see this link: "Lott listed 18 studies that found [CC] laws reduced violent crime, ten that said it has no discernible effect and one that found it increased violent crime."

"The debate has been between those who say that it reduces crime and those who say it has no effect," he noted. ?Very few debates are divided that way.?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/f ... 54-580638ede391_blog.html

2. Anecdotal evidence - Look at this legal gun owner in Florida or Alabama who improperly shot someone! This never would have happened without CC! Clearly the risk of harm to all of society is too great because of these isolated incidents, we cannot allow CC.

Again, while the anecdotes themselves are correct, the intended inference (see #1) is not. The studies are largely in agreement that allowing CC does not allow violent crime to rise.

3. Name calling/I feel safe without a gun so that means no one should have the option! - These are essentially the same argument, the first is just an immature way of expressing it. The person thinks it is "unnecessary" for themselves to carry a gun so this means no one else in the state should be able to have the option.

This is essentially an extreme nanny state type argument. We know that allowing CC will not cause the violent crime rate to be raised. Maybe some people subconsciously disregard this or are unaware and think along the lines of guns = danger so more guns on the street = more danger. But this has been proven to be false.

I think part of this argument is simply people wanting to impose their personal beliefs and preferences onto everyone else. But legislation should not work that way, especially when a Constitutional freedom is involved.

Also, it is arrogant and closed-minded to assume your set of experiences can represent all possible scenarios one can face, and because you personally never feel in any danger when outside that means no one has this right. For example, the man who is appealing his court case to the Supreme Court (why this thread was created) is a business owner who owns and services ATMs. He told the Star Ledger he sometimes carries large amounts of cash and he wants to carry a gun during his work for protection. I think this person should be able to have the option to protect himself and it is simply ridiculous that the government will not allow it (but would if he were a retired cop).

For these reasons, I think the anti CC folks are on the wrong side of history and this will be proven in the near to intermediate future.



User, please see groups 1 and 2. This is not our future. Also, this man would be arrested on the same charges under CCW minus the unlawful possession.

Posted on: 2014/3/12 20:39
 Top 


Re: Concealed carry coming to NJ?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/1/11 18:21
Last Login :
2019/12/26 15:30
From GV Bayside Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5356
Offline
Is this our future?

TOMS RIVER ? A local man was arrested and charged with aggravated assault after allegedly pointing a gun at a woman during a road-rage incident, police said.

Hunter L. Stickno, 24, was arrested Tuesday night after police pulled over his car ? and allegedly found a loaded Taurus .357-magnum handgun on the floor of the truck within his reach, said Chief Mitchell Little.

Police initially responded to the Wawa convenience store on Route 9 at 10:57 p.m. in response to a road-rage incident, the chief said. The officers met with a 21-year-old Toms River woman who said an unknown man pointed a handgun at her, authorities said.

The woman said the man was tailgating her in the area of Oak and North Bay avenues, police said. When the two cars approached the intersection of North Bay Avenue and Church Road, the man allegedly pulled alongside her car, put his window down, and then pointed a gun at her as he yelled, the woman claimed.

The woman drove through the red light and was pursued by the man ? but eventually evaded him, and met the police officers at the Wawa, the chief said.

A vehicle description led to officers stopping Stickno?s 2009 Honda Ridgeline truck near Route 9 and Church Road, police said.

As officers approached the car, they saw the black handgun on the floor of the vehicle, Little added.

Stickno legally bought the gun out of state while he was not a New Jersey resident, the chief added.

Stickno was arrested and charged with aggravated assault, possession of a firearm for an unlawful purpose, and unlawful possession of a weapon. Bail was set at $50,000, and Stickno was taken to the Ocean County Jail.

http://www.nj.com/ocean/index.ssf/201 ... _incident_police_say.html

Posted on: 2014/3/12 20:03
 Top 


Re: Concealed carry coming to NJ?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2014/3/4 22:31
Last Login :
2019/8/30 19:03
From Downtown Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 820
Offline
Quote:

borisp wrote:
Quote:
devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:
JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:
Monroe wrote:
Because I like to show hypocrisy, that's why. It amuses me.


Since the two have noting to do with each other, I'm not seeing any hypocrisy regardless of how one feels on gay marriage


Argument for gay marriage: "If you don't like gay marriage then don't get gay married."

Argument for CCW: "If you don't like CCW, then don't get a CCW permit."


I have nothing against gay marriages. In fact, I have nothing against marriages at all.

What I am against is government regulating marriages, recording marriages, and treating people differently based on their married status. And if you thought of marriage as a right, - you would have been against it too. Just like you are against government regulating press, or recording abortions, or treating people differently on the basis of their religion.

Problem is, - while you pose as the defenders of rights, you do not think of marriage as a right. You are not against government regulating marriages. You are not against government recording marriages. You are not against government deciding who can and cannot marry, - as a matter of principle. You treat marriage as a privilege not right.

Who's a hypocrite now, eh?




I'm just elaborating on an argument (one that wasn't even mine), an in particular, noting how similar logic is viewed by one side as legitimate on their preferred issue but disavowed on another issue.

I'm generally fine with gays marrying, but don't want the thread to get hijacked into a gay issues discussion.

Posted on: 2014/3/10 13:59
 Top 


Re: Concealed carry coming to NJ?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/8/17 1:45
Last Login :
2020/8/26 13:40
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3141
Offline
Quote:

borisp wrote:
Quote:
devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:
JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:
Monroe wrote:
Because I like to show hypocrisy, that's why. It amuses me.


Since the two have noting to do with each other, I'm not seeing any hypocrisy regardless of how one feels on gay marriage


Argument for gay marriage: "If you don't like gay marriage then don't get gay married."

Argument for CCW: "If you don't like CCW, then don't get a CCW permit."


I have nothing against gay marriages. In fact, I have nothing against marriages at all.

What I am against is government regulating marriages, recording marriages, and treating people differently based on their married status. And if you thought of marriage as a right, - you would have been against it too. Just like you are against government regulating press, or recording abortions, or treating people differently on the basis of their religion.

Problem is, - while you pose as the defenders of rights, you do not think of marriage as a right. You are not against government regulating marriages. You are not against government recording marriages. You are not against government deciding who can and cannot marry, - as a matter of principle. You treat marriage as a privilege not right.

Who's a hypocrite now, eh?




I think I agree with most of what you are saying Boris. But if you view marriage as a contract, does the government have a role in enforcing that contract?

Posted on: 2014/3/10 12:45
 Top 


Re: Concealed carry coming to NJ?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/5/29 3:09
Last Login :
2019/10/31 13:04
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 727
Offline
Quote:
devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:
JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:
Monroe wrote:
Because I like to show hypocrisy, that's why. It amuses me.


Since the two have noting to do with each other, I'm not seeing any hypocrisy regardless of how one feels on gay marriage


Argument for gay marriage: "If you don't like gay marriage then don't get gay married."

Argument for CCW: "If you don't like CCW, then don't get a CCW permit."


I have nothing against gay marriages. In fact, I have nothing against marriages at all.

What I am against is government regulating marriages, recording marriages, and treating people differently based on their married status. And if you thought of marriage as a right, - you would have been against it too. Just like you are against government regulating press, or recording abortions, or treating people differently on the basis of their religion.

Problem is, - while you pose as the defenders of rights, you do not think of marriage as a right. You are not against government regulating marriages. You are not against government recording marriages. You are not against government deciding who can and cannot marry, - as a matter of principle. You treat marriage as a privilege not right.

Who's a hypocrite now, eh?



Posted on: 2014/3/10 11:45
 Top 


Re: Concealed carry coming to NJ?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/11/10 20:38
Last Login :
2018/2/1 3:02
From JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3071
Offline
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Because I like to show hypocrisy, that's why. It amuses me.


Since the two have noting to do with each other, I'm not seeing any hypocrisy regardless of how one feels on gay marriage.


Argument for gay marriage: "If you don't like gay marriage then don't get gay married."

Argument for CCW: "If you don't like CCW, then don't get a CCW permit."



Ah, I see. Thank you for making his point clear.

However, I think this an oversimplification and not a good analogy.

I believe many of the opponents to CCW operate out of a sincerely-held but misguided and incorrect belief that allowing CCW will increase the chances that they become innocent victims in a cross-fire. Especially people in groups 1 and 2 of my framework (the ones that spread fear-mongering hyperbole like a return to the Wild West and those that point to anecdotal evidence).

It is not hypocritical to be against something if you think you will face personal harm from it. A better analogy would be opposition to people smoking in public. You could say, "If you don't like smoking in public then don't smoke." But since the non-smokers have to breathe in the smoke, they are getting harmed (though the degree of harm is debatable). So it would not be hypocritical to be for gay marriage (no harm to you) yet also against smoking in public (increased harm).

So I think some folks mistakenly believe they will be harmed by CCW laws being enacted. But as I outlined, over 27 recent studies (presumably on both sides of the spectrum) have proven them to be incorrect, and for this reason the anti-CCW folks will become very upset with how things turn out in the future.

Monroe would be correct for people in my third group (it is unnecessary for me to carry a gun therefore no one should have the right) who (1) recognize the studies are in agreement that violent crime does not rise after CCW and (2) are for gay marriage using the don't get gay married argument. Those people recognize they would not be at a higher risk than normal of facing harm yet wish to impose their personal beliefs onto everyone and take away their rights. They would be hypocrites, and encouraged to reconsider their position.

Posted on: 2014/3/9 22:03
 Top 


Re: Concealed carry coming to NJ?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2014/3/4 22:31
Last Login :
2019/8/30 19:03
From Downtown Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 820
Offline
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Because I like to show hypocrisy, that's why. It amuses me.


Since the two have noting to do with each other, I'm not seeing any hypocrisy regardless of how one feels on gay marriage.


Argument for gay marriage: "If you don't like gay marriage then don't get gay married."

Argument for CCW: "If you don't like CCW, then don't get a CCW permit."


Posted on: 2014/3/9 20:42
 Top 


Re: Concealed carry coming to NJ?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2014/3/4 22:31
Last Login :
2019/8/30 19:03
From Downtown Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 820
Offline
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
It's interesting to me that people who use the argument of being on the wrong side of history re:gay marriage, and use the argument of 'don't want gay marriage? don't marry someone gay' seem to feel exactly 180 degrees when it comes to concealed carry using the same points.


The two issues have nothing to do with each other. And "wrong side of history" is not an argument by itself. It's used after you make your real points. And it isn't really mentioned with CCW anyway, I just did because it seemed appropriate.


Of course they don't have anything to do with each other, did I say otherwise?


Why bring it up then?


I think his point was that the logic used to support gay marriage is shrugged off when discussing CCW.

Posted on: 2014/3/9 20:40
 Top 


Re: Concealed carry coming to NJ?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/11/10 20:38
Last Login :
2018/2/1 3:02
From JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3071
Offline
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Because I like to show hypocrisy, that's why. It amuses me.


Since the two have noting to do with each other, I'm not seeing any hypocrisy regardless of how one feels on gay marriage.

Posted on: 2014/3/9 20:08
 Top 


Re: Concealed carry coming to NJ?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/5/15 14:11
Last Login :
2020/10/5 21:44
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4652
Offline
Because I like to show hypocrisy, that's why. It amuses me.

Posted on: 2014/3/9 19:44
 Top 


Re: Concealed carry coming to NJ?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/11/10 20:38
Last Login :
2018/2/1 3:02
From JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3071
Offline
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
It's interesting to me that people who use the argument of being on the wrong side of history re:gay marriage, and use the argument of 'don't want gay marriage? don't marry someone gay' seem to feel exactly 180 degrees when it comes to concealed carry using the same points.


The two issues have nothing to do with each other. And "wrong side of history" is not an argument by itself. It's used after you make your real points. And it isn't really mentioned with CCW anyway, I just did because it seemed appropriate.


Of course they don't have anything to do with each other, did I say otherwise?


Why bring it up then?

Posted on: 2014/3/9 19:42
 Top 


Re: Concealed carry coming to NJ?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/5/15 14:11
Last Login :
2020/10/5 21:44
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4652
Offline
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
It's interesting to me that people who use the argument of being on the wrong side of history re:gay marriage, and use the argument of 'don't want gay marriage? don't marry someone gay' seem to feel exactly 180 degrees when it comes to concealed carry using the same points.


The two issues have nothing to do with each other. And "wrong side of history" is not an argument by itself. It's used after you make your real points. And it isn't really mentioned with CCW anyway, I just did because it seemed appropriate.


Of course they don't have anything to do with each other, did I say otherwise?

Posted on: 2014/3/9 19:37
 Top 


Re: Concealed carry coming to NJ?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/11/10 20:38
Last Login :
2018/2/1 3:02
From JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3071
Offline
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
It's interesting to me that people who use the argument of being on the wrong side of history re:gay marriage, and use the argument of 'don't want gay marriage? don't marry someone gay' seem to feel exactly 180 degrees when it comes to concealed carry using the same points.


The two issues have nothing to do with each other. And "wrong side of history" is not an argument by itself. It's used after you make your real points. And it isn't really mentioned with CCW anyway, I just did because it seemed appropriate.

Posted on: 2014/3/9 19:23
 Top 


Re: Concealed carry coming to NJ?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/5/15 14:11
Last Login :
2020/10/5 21:44
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4652
Offline
It's interesting to me that people who use the argument of being on the wrong side of history re:gay marriage, and use the argument of 'don't want gay marriage? don't marry someone gay' seem to feel exactly 180 degrees when it comes to concealed carry using the same points.

Posted on: 2014/3/9 18:25
 Top 


Re: Concealed carry coming to NJ?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/11/10 20:38
Last Login :
2018/2/1 3:02
From JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3071
Offline
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

MDM wrote:
...

Heller states that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right. Government cannot prevent non-felons of sound mind from possessing arms.

What was argued successfully in the 7th and 9th District Courts is that this right does not stop at the doorway of a person's home or business. Your constitutional rights do not become null and void when you leave your house.

Illinois was mandated by the court to become a shall issue as the State had to provide a reason for you NOT to carry. This is where the concept of 'reasonable limitations' come in. The State can limit the right (i.e. felons cannot carry). However, those limits cannot provide an undo burden. A burden that essentially becomes a ban. California is now facing the same with its 'May Issue' law. CA is appealing to the Supreme court.

...


The US Constitution generally protects individuals rights and freedoms, so long as they act responsibly and don't impinge on other people rights and freedoms. Other countries legislate on the basis that most people are idiots and need proscriptive laws to protect themselves and others from the consequences of that idiocy.

Hard to see how the anti-CC lobby have a case under both the letter and spirit of the US Constitution. Where is the real evidence that CC impinges on anyone else's rights or freedoms? "Ban that scary-looking dog" type arguments don't work for me.


I'm not sure if the anti-CC folks have more impressive arguments than have been used on this thread. But from what I can tell they have three types of arguments:

1. Fear-mongering hyperbole - We don't want New Jersey to turn into the "Wild West!" People will be shooting at each other in the streets over petty disagreements!

This is demonstrably false as shown by the numerous studies finding that enacting CC laws either reduces violent crime or has no discernible effect.

For an example, see this link: "Lott listed 18 studies that found [CC] laws reduced violent crime, ten that said it has no discernible effect and one that found it increased violent crime."

"The debate has been between those who say that it reduces crime and those who say it has no effect," he noted. ?Very few debates are divided that way.?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/f ... 54-580638ede391_blog.html

2. Anecdotal evidence - Look at this legal gun owner in Florida or Alabama who improperly shot someone! This never would have happened without CC! Clearly the risk of harm to all of society is too great because of these isolated incidents, we cannot allow CC.

Again, while the anecdotes themselves are correct, the intended inference (see #1) is not. The studies are largely in agreement that allowing CC does not allow violent crime to rise.

3. Name calling/I feel safe without a gun so that means no one should have the option! - These are essentially the same argument, the first is just an immature way of expressing it. The person thinks it is "unnecessary" for themselves to carry a gun so this means no one else in the state should be able to have the option.

This is essentially an extreme nanny state type argument. We know that allowing CC will not cause the violent crime rate to be raised. Maybe some people subconsciously disregard this or are unaware and think along the lines of guns = danger so more guns on the street = more danger. But this has been proven to be false.

I think part of this argument is simply people wanting to impose their personal beliefs and preferences onto everyone else. But legislation should not work that way, especially when a Constitutional freedom is involved.

Also, it is arrogant and closed-minded to assume your set of experiences can represent all possible scenarios one can face, and because you personally never feel in any danger when outside that means no one has this right. For example, the man who is appealing his court case to the Supreme Court (why this thread was created) is a business owner who owns and services ATMs. He told the Star Ledger he sometimes carries large amounts of cash and he wants to carry a gun during his work for protection. I think this person should be able to have the option to protect himself and it is simply ridiculous that the government will not allow it (but would if he were a retired cop).

For these reasons, I think the anti CC folks are on the wrong side of history and this will be proven in the near to intermediate future.





Posted on: 2014/3/8 16:19
 Top 


Re: Concealed carry coming to NJ?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/8/17 1:45
Last Login :
2020/8/26 13:40
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3141
Offline
Quote:

MDM wrote:
...

Heller states that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right. Government cannot prevent non-felons of sound mind from possessing arms.

What was argued successfully in the 7th and 9th District Courts is that this right does not stop at the doorway of a person's home or business. Your constitutional rights do not become null and void when you leave your house.

Illinois was mandated by the court to become a shall issue as the State had to provide a reason for you NOT to carry. This is where the concept of 'reasonable limitations' come in. The State can limit the right (i.e. felons cannot carry). However, those limits cannot provide an undo burden. A burden that essentially becomes a ban. California is now facing the same with its 'May Issue' law. CA is appealing to the Supreme court.

...


The US Constitution generally protects individuals rights and freedoms, so long as they act responsibly and don't impinge on other people rights and freedoms. Other countries legislate on the basis that most people are idiots and need proscriptive laws to protect themselves and others from the consequences of that idiocy.

Hard to see how the anti-CC lobby have a case under both the letter and spirit of the US Constitution. Where is the real evidence that CC impinges on anyone else's rights or freedoms? "Ban that scary-looking dog" type arguments don't work for me.

Posted on: 2014/3/8 15:38
 Top 


Re: Concealed carry coming to NJ?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/7/9 11:16
Last Login :
2/20 17:20
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2737
Offline
Dolomiti wrote:
I seriously doubt NJ will be forced by the courts to allow concealed carry. Courts have repeatedly upheld NJ's laws.


Heller states that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right. Government cannot prevent non-felons of sound mind from possessing arms.

What was argued successfully in the 7th and 9th District Courts is that this right does not stop at the doorway of a person's home or business. Your constitutional rights do not become null and void when you leave your house.

Illinois was mandated by the court to become a shall issue as the State had to provide a reason for you NOT to carry. This is where the concept of 'reasonable limitations' come in. The State can limit the right (i.e. felons cannot carry). However, those limits cannot provide an undo burden. A burden that essentially becomes a ban. California is now facing the same with its 'May Issue' law. CA is appealing to the Supreme court.


From the 3rd District Court Ruling:


Although Heller does not explicitly identify a right to publicly carry arms for self- defense, it is possible to conclude that Heller implies such a right. The Seventh Circuit reached this very conclusion in Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933, 942 (7th Cir. 2012), when it stated that ?[t]he Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside.?6 As the Second Circuit recently explained, however, Heller ?was never meant ?to clarify the entire field? of Second Amendment jurisprudence,? Kachalsky, 701 F.3d at 89 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 635), but rather struck down a single law that ?ran roughshod? over D.C. residents? individual right to possess usable handguns in the home, id. at 88. Hence, the Seventh Circuit in Moore may have read Heller too broadly. As the Seventh Circuit itself had earlier stated in United States v. Skoien, 614 F.3d 638, 640 (7th Cir. 2010) (en banc), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 1674 (2011), Heller?s language ?warns readers not to treat Heller as containing broader holdings than the Court set out to establish: that the Second Amendment created individual rights, one of which is keeping operable handguns at home for self-defense.? Id. (emphasis added).
Appellants contend also that ?[t]ext, history, tradition and precedent all confirm that [individuals] enjoy a right to publicly carry arms for their defense.? Appellants? Brief 12 (emphasis added). At this time, we are not inclined to address this contention by engaging in a round of full-blown historical analysis, given other courts? extensive consideration of the history and tradition of the Second Amendment. See, e.g., Heller, 554 U.S. at 605-619 (?We now address how the Second Amendment was interpreted from immediately after its ratification through the end of the 19th century.?). We reject Appellants? contention that a historical analysis leads inevitably to the conclusion that the Second Amendment confers upon individuals a right to carry handguns in public
others, or a threat to public safety.? Firearm Concealed Carry Act, Illinois Public Act 098-0063, available at http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/98/PDF/098-0063.pdf.
12
for self-defense. As the Second Circuit observed in Kachalsky, ?[h]istory and tradition do not speak with one voice here. What history demonstrates is that states often disagreed as to the scope of the right to bear arms, whether the right was embodied in a state constitution or the Second Amendment.? 701 F.3d at 91.
For these reasons, we decline to definitively declare that the individual right to bear arms for the purpose of self-defense extends beyond the home, the ?core? of the right as identified by Heller. We do, however, recognize that the Second Amendment?s individual right to bear arms may have some application beyond the home. Ultimately, as our Court did in Marzzarella, we refrain from answering this question definitively because it is not necessary to our conclusion.



Posted on: 2014/3/8 15:07
 Top 


Re: Concealed carry coming to NJ?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/5/29 3:09
Last Login :
2019/10/31 13:04
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 727
Offline
Quote:
wrote:
But no way in hell should anyone but law enforcement on duty be allowed to carry a weapon. What's next? The asinine stand your ground law ?

Well, the Constitution says that it is not up to you to allow or disallow, - it is my right. Just as a freedom of speech. Now, that aside, could you clarify your reasoning. Do you think that a LEO is more valuable member of a society than me? Then, what exactly is asinine about the law that you mentioned? Again, clarify the reasoning, - you think that the victim of an aggression must be legally required not to defend itself and to run away, - why exactly? What is your goal here?

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

How many of those were pre-Heller?

Quote:
Dolomiti wrote:
I also am not too thrilled about other states interfering in New Jersey's laws.

The XIV amendment made it mandatory for all the States to observe all rights of the US citizens and empowered the federal Congress to force the states into compliance. You are not the first one who's not been thrilled about this idea.

Quote:
Pebble wrote:
I won?t contend that there are people out there who are skilled enough and level headed enough that having a concealed carry permit is an exceptional idea. I just happen to think the majority of them are already working in law enforcement.

Wha?... Do you mean to tell us that in your opinion any level headed person would naturally want to become a police officer? That explains a lot.

Quote:
Pebble wrote:
Those are three stories that take place recently in which people fired their guns while carrying them in public. Although you liked to include stories about people with guns in their own home, I chose stories that pertained to this specific topic.

No, you did not. All your stories are about the fact that it is possible to accidentally harm yourself and others. However, guns are not unique in this respect, - cars, swimming pools, electrical wiring, knives and many other things are in the same category. If you were truly driven by the idea of accident prevention, you'd asked to ban private swimming pools first, - they cause a lot of injury.

Quote:
Pebble wrote: Quote:
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.

Here is a study on density of population and crime.

This study makes no correction for demographic factors, - income level, education, etc, and they state so in their "conclusons and caveats". Their conclusions are all in terms of "evidence tends to suggest". Do you want a translation? Well, when the evidence proves the hypothesis, they say "we have proved". If there is no proof, one step lower is "the evidence suggests". And then the next level down is "the evidence tends to suggest", which means that it would be too presumptuous to use the phrase "the evidence suggests".
And, even their research were conclusive, - it would not have helped you. You need something that would explain why certain types of crime are almost non-existent in Vermont. This research would bring you only as far as "not too frequent".

Quote:
Pebble wrote:
For one, you had to be rather close to the target. You couldn?t just fire off a gun from 30 yards away and hit a target. You needed to be within the blades distance.

What's an average distance at which a gun shooting happens in the US? What's your best guess?

Quote:
Pebble wrote:
For two, were you the only person with a weapon the likelihood that you would be able to murder 5 people in a room is unlikely. Only a gun makes this type vast death possible.

Not true.

What surprises me most is how easily you make definitive statements, - without having any information on the subject! You have no personal experience, no training, no expert opinion, no theoretical knowledge, no facts, - nothing. You could have at least googled it first, - but no. You just go an declare things as facts.




Posted on: 2014/3/8 14:08
 Top 


Re: Concealed carry coming to NJ?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/8/17 1:45
Last Login :
2020/8/26 13:40
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3141
Offline
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
How do violent crime stats compare overall in large cities that allow CC to those that don't?


From what I've seen, you have to compare the crime rate in a place before and after allowing CC. Otherwise it is comparing apples to oranges.

I believe the studies are all over the map. This is a good, unbiased (I think) brief article on the topic.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/f ... 54-580638ede391_blog.html

The gist is: "Certainly, it appears such laws have not increased the crime rate, as opponents had feared, but it is equally a stretch to say such laws are a slam-dunk reason for why crimes have decreased."


I've been a supporter (of some) tougher gun laws for some time. But there's a good argument for allowing CC, if it reduces violent crime or even if there's no discernible correlation. We shouldn't be legislating on the basis of anecdotes and media hype.

Posted on: 2014/3/8 13:18
 Top 




(1) 2 3 4 5 »




[Advanced Search]





Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!



LicenseInformation | AboutUs | PrivacyPolicy | Faq | Contact


JERSEY CITY LIST - News & Reviews - Jersey City, NJ - Copyright 2004 - 2017