Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: If they know you're armed, you're safer - Bad guys won't bother you


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: If they know you're armed, you're safer - Bad guys won't bother you Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: If they know you're armed, you're safer - Bad guys ... - 12/29/2012 10:15:58 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

there are some here who have pointed to Lotts repeatedly discreadit study...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime

The connection is far from discredited. You seem to have overlooked a section at your link:
    Support

    A conference organized by the Center for Law, Economics, and Public Policy at Yale Law School and held at American Enterprise Institute was published in a special issue of The Journal of Law and Economics.[2] Academics of all interests in the debate were invited to participate and provide refereed empirical research.[3] Some papers from that conference supported Lott's conclusions:

      Bruce L. Benson, Florida State University, and Brent D. Mast, American Enterprise Institute, "Privately Produced General Deterrence", The Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001.[4]

      Florenz Plassmann, State University of New York at Binghamton, and T. Nicolaus Tideman, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, "Does the right to carry concealed handguns deter countable crimes? Only a count analysis can say", The Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001.[5]

      Carlisle E. Moody, College of William and Mary, "Testing for the effects of concealed weapons laws: Specification errors and robustness," The Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001.[6]

      David E. Olson, Loyola University Chicago, and Michael D. Maltz, University of Illinois at Chicago, "Right-to-carry concealed weapons laws and homicide in large U.S. counties: the effect on weapon types, victim characteristics, and victim-offender relationships," The Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001.[7] They found "a decrease in total homicides."

      David B. Mustard, University of Georgia, "The Impact of Gun Laws on Police Deaths," The Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001.[8]

      T. B. Marvell, Justec Research, "The Impact of Banning Juvenile Gun Possession," The Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001.[9] Marvell found evidence that right-to-carry laws reduced rape rates.

    Other refereed empirical academic studies besides the original paper with David Mustard that have supported Lott's conclusions include the following.

      William Alan Bartley and Mark A. Cohen, Vanderbilt University, "The Effect of Concealed Weapons Laws: An Extreme Bound Analysis", Economic Inquiry, 1998.[10]

      Florenz Plassmann, State University of New York at Binghamton, and John Whitley, University of Adelaide, 'Confirming "More Guns, Less Crime"', Stanford Law Review, 2003.[11]

      Eric Helland, Claremont-McKenna College and Alexander Tabarrok, George Mason University, 'Using Placebo Laws to Test "More Guns, Less Crime",' The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 2008.[12]

      Carlisle E. Moody, College of William and Mary, and Thomas B. Marvell, Justec Research, "The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws", Econ Journal Watch, 2008.[13]
It's okay. Shit like that happens when you suffer from agenda-driven tunnel vision.

K.


< Message edited by Kirata -- 12/29/2012 10:46:34 AM >

(in reply to Nosathro)
Profile   Post #: 101
RE: If they know you're armed, you're safer - Bad guys ... - 12/29/2012 10:34:04 AM   
Nosathro


Posts: 3319
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: Orange County, California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

there are some here who have pointed to Lotts repeatedly discreadit study...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime

I guess you didn't notice this section at your link:
    Support

    A conference organized by the Center for Law, Economics, and Public Policy at Yale Law School and held at American Enterprise Institute was published in a special issue of The Journal of Law and Economics.[2] Academics of all interests in the debate were invited to participate and provide refereed empirical research.[3] Some papers from that conference supported Lott's conclusions:

      Bruce L. Benson, Florida State University, and Brent D. Mast, American Enterprise Institute, "Privately Produced General Deterrence", The Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001.[4]

      Florenz Plassmann, State University of New York at Binghamton, and T. Nicolaus Tideman, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, "Does the right to carry concealed handguns deter countable crimes? Only a count analysis can say", The Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001.[5]

      Carlisle E. Moody, College of William and Mary, "Testing for the effects of concealed weapons laws: Specification errors and robustness," The Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001.[6]

      David E. Olson, Loyola University Chicago, and Michael D. Maltz, University of Illinois at Chicago, "Right-to-carry concealed weapons laws and homicide in large U.S. counties: the effect on weapon types, victim characteristics, and victim-offender relationships," The Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001.[7] They found "a decrease in total homicides."

      David B. Mustard, University of Georgia, "The Impact of Gun Laws on Police Deaths," The Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001.[8]

      T. B. Marvell, Justec Research, "The Impact of Banning Juvenile Gun Possession," The Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001.[9] Marvell found evidence that right-to-carry laws reduced rape rates.

    Other refereed empirical academic studies besides the original paper with David Mustard that have supported Lott's conclusions include the following.

      William Alan Bartley and Mark A. Cohen, Vanderbilt University, "The Effect of Concealed Weapons Laws: An Extreme Bound Analysis", Economic Inquiry, 1998.[10]

      Florenz Plassmann, State University of New York at Binghamton, and John Whitley, University of Adelaide, 'Confirming "More Guns, Less Crime"', Stanford Law Review, 2003.[11]

      Eric Helland, Claremont-McKenna College and Alexander Tabarrok, George Mason University, 'Using Placebo Laws to Test "More Guns, Less Crime",' The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 2008.[12]

      Carlisle E. Moody, College of William and Mary, and Thomas B. Marvell, Justec Research, "The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws", Econ Journal Watch, 2008.[13]
It's okay. Shit like that happens when you suffer from agenda-driven tunnel vision.

K.

You forgot these, talk about agenda-driven tunnel vision...

Academic studies that have rejected Lott's conclusions include the following. These studies contend that there seems to be little or no effect on crime from the passage of license-to-carry laws. Donohue's 2003 study finds a temporary increase in aggravated assaults.
Rutgers sociology professor Ted Goertzel stated that "Lott’s massive data set was simply unsuitable for his task", and that he "compar[ed] trends in Idaho and West Virginia and Mississippi with trends in Washington, D.C. and New York City" without proper statistical controls. He points out that econometric methods (such as the Lott & Mustard RTC study or the Levitt & Donohue abortion study) are susceptible to misuse and can even become junk science.[14]
Ian Ayres, Yale Law School, and John Donohue, Stanford Law School, "Shooting Down the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis," Stanford Law Review, 2003.[15]
Jens Ludwig, Georgetown University, "Concealed-Gun-Carrying Laws and Violent Crime: Evidence from State Panel Data", International Review of Law and Economics, 1998.[16]
Dan Black and Daniel Nagin, "Do 'Right-to-Carry' Laws Deter Violent Crime?" Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 209–213 (January 1998).
Mark Duggan, University of Chicago, "More Guns, More Crime," National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER Working Paper No. W7967, October 2000, later published in Journal of Political Economy.[17]
Tomislav V. Kovandzic and Thomas B. Marvell, "Right-To-Carry Concealed Firearms and Violent Crime: Crime Control Through Gun Decontrol?" Criminology and Public Policy 2, (2003) pp. 363-396.
John J. Donahue III, Stanford Law School, 'The Final Bullet in the Body of the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis', Criminology and Public Policy, 2003.[18]
John Donohue and Ian Ayres. "More Guns, Less Crime Fails Again: The Latest Evidence from 1977–2006" Econ Journal Watch 6.2 (2009): 218-238.[19]

In 2001, Rutgers University sociology professor Ted Goertzel[60] considered use of econometrics to establish causal relationships by Lott (and by Lott's critics Levitt, Ayres and Donohue) to be "fundamentally flawed" junk science.[61]

The National Academy of Sciences panel that reported on several gun control issues in 2004 looked at Right-To-Carry laws in Chapter 6 and endorsed neither the Lott & Mustard (1997) level and trend models as definite proof nor the Ayres & Donohue (2003) hybrid model as definite refutation of Lott's thesis: the majority of the panel concluded that econometrics could not decide the issue, suggesting instead alternate research, such as a survey of felons to determine if RTC changed their behavior.[62] The criminologist on the NAS panel, James Q. Wilson, wrote a dissent from the econometricians' conclusion. Wilson noted in the report that all the panel's estimates on murder rates supported Lott's conclusion on the effect of RTC on murder.[63] The Committee responded that "[w]hile it is true that most of the reported estimates [of the policy on murder rates] are negative, several are positive and many are statistically insignificant."[64] They further noted that the full committee, including Wilson, agreed that there was not convincing evidence that RTC policies had an impact on other kinds of violent crime.

By the way...how much more do you have to wait in line to get my number...?

< Message edited by Nosathro -- 12/29/2012 10:39:04 AM >

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 102
RE: If they know you're armed, you're safer - Bad guys ... - 12/29/2012 10:37:24 AM   
Nosathro


Posts: 3319
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: Orange County, California
Status: offline 		And for all you out there who disapprove of what happen...guess what....they going to publish even more.

http://news.yahoo.com/york-newspaper-list-more-gun-permit-holders-uproar-120534293--finance.html


(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 103
RE: If they know you're armed, you're safer - Bad guys ... - 12/29/2012 10:45:15 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

You forgot these talk about agenda-driven tunnel vision...

I didn't forget them. You falsely claimed that Lott's conclusion about the relationship between guns and crime in the United States has been discredited. Far from being discredited, there is no shortage of studies that support the connection he draws. People are free to look at the research, read the arguments and responses, and judge for themselves how well they think the conclusions connect with the data. But your opinions are not facts, and when you state them as such you can count on more often than not having to fold or go broke.

K.

(in reply to Nosathro)
Profile   Post #: 104
RE: If they know you're armed, you're safer - Bad guys ... - 12/29/2012 2:42:45 PM   
Nosathro


Posts: 3319
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: Orange County, California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

You forgot these talk about agenda-driven tunnel vision...

I didn't forget them. You falsely claimed that Lott's conclusion about the relationship between guns and crime in the United States has been discredited. Far from being discredited, there is no shortage of studies that support the connection he draws. People are free to look at the research, read the arguments and responses, and judge for themselves how well they think the conclusions connect with the data. But your opinions are not facts, and when you state them as such you can count on more often than not having to fold or go broke.

K.


In 2004 The National Academy of Sciences wrote on Lotts study

"The Committee responded that "[w]hile it is true that most of the reported estimates [of the policy on murder rates] are negative, several are positive and many are statistically insignificant."[64] They further noted that the full committee, including Wilson, agreed that there was not convincing evidence that RTC policies had an impact on other kinds of violent crime."

That pretty much debunks Lott and what the National Academy of Science wrote I did not make up. If you want real world review Lotts study consider this.

It is also to note that in your post you left out those who disagree with Lott, including The National Academy of Science, so who is really trying to make their opinion a fact....

The US has the highest number of firearms in the publice sector and that is growing. There is almost a firearm for every man, woman and child in this country

http://www.mibazaar.com/gunownership.html

We are also in the top ten of highest crime rate in world. The closest country, the United Kingdom, is only about half of our crime rate

http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/countries-with-highest-reported-crime-rates.html

If Lott study was anywere near true the US should be near the bottom...but we aren't. My opinion based of fact. Your opinions are based on an internal emotional response.....

< Message edited by Nosathro -- 12/29/2012 2:49:57 PM >

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 105
RE: If they know you're armed, you're safer - Bad guys ... - 12/29/2012 3:32:46 PM   
Aylee


Posts: 24103
Joined: 10/14/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: stef

quote:

ORIGINAL: Okeanos

I guess what bugs me most about this analogy is the historical ignorance that it exhibits: when the USA developed the bomb, they did not demonstrate it by blowing off the top of Mt Fuji or some uninhabited island; instead, they performed two surprise attacks against fleshy targets containing huge numbers of civilians. So, historically, a more apt analogy would be "if you one day go buy yourself a gun, why not go meet that guy you frequently get into fistfights with, and surprise him by blowing his head off?"

Ignoring the rest of the stupidity here, if a country declares war against you, you really can't call striking back a "surprise attack". Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack.


You cannot really call it a surprise when we drop leaflets for three days first, either.

_____________________________

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

I don’t always wgah’nagl fhtagn. But when I do, I ph’nglui mglw’nafh R’lyeh.

(in reply to stef)
Profile   Post #: 106
RE: If they know you're armed, you're safer - Bad guys ... - 12/29/2012 3:38:45 PM   
Fightdirecto


Posts: 1101
Joined: 8/3/2004
Status: offline 		If I am entitled, by law, to know if my neighbor is a sex offender, to protect my grandchildren when they are visiting, I should be entitled to know if my neighbor owns a firearm.

He or she has every right to own a firearm LEGALLY - but I should have a right to know if he does.

That way, if he or she parks blocking my driveway, I can bring my own firearm with me when I tell him or her to move the car, rather than be shot and killed by him or her because I wasn't be able to defend myself. If we're both armed, it will then just be a matter of who shoots first and most accurately (I won the New England Army Reserves/National Guard pistol championship 3 years in a row, so I'm confident I'd win that gunfight).

In short, I should be able to know if my neighbors are doing something that might endanger my life or the lives of my family - even if what they are doing is LEGAL.

Lastly, nowhere in the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is there anything that says that the right to bear arms includes a right to anonymity.


_____________________________

"I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.””
- Ellie Wiesel

(in reply to Aylee)
Profile   Post #: 107
RE: If they know you're armed, you're safer - Bad guys ... - 12/29/2012 3:54:32 PM   
Aynne88


Posts: 3873
Joined: 8/29/2008
Status: offline 		You are comparing a criminal act to a completely legal act.

What kind of thinking is it that would make you actually contemplate bringing a gun to a parking dispute? People that think like that are part of the reason why I sometimes cringe when admitting I am a gun owner. That is just so over the top and reactionary. Oh and don't bet too soon, you aren't the only sharp shooter on the range cowboy. Jesus men and their testosterone.....ridiculous.

< Message edited by Aynne88 -- 12/29/2012 3:57:22 PM >

_____________________________

As long as people will shed the blood of innocent creatures there can be no peace, no liberty, no harmony between people. Slaughter and justice cannot dwell together.
—Isaac Bashevis Singer, writer and Nobel laureate (1902–1991)



(in reply to Fightdirecto)
Profile   Post #: 108
RE: If they know you're armed, you're safer - Bad guys ... - 12/29/2012 3:59:28 PM   
Aylee


Posts: 24103
Joined: 10/14/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

New York does require permits to purchase, requires the handgun to be registered and the owner licensed.

In New York, a permit and registration is not required to own a rifle or a shotgun, and a license to possess a handgun also serves as a license to carry unless restricted. What they published was the names and addresses of people with a license to possess and unless restricted carry a handgun.

K.



Wrong concealed weapons permits are seperate from owning.....and still it is a matter of public record ...so lst Amendment wins.....

P.S. Would you mind getting a waiting line number for me at the Hall of Records.....


Let me get this straight.  The newspaper has a right to the 1st amendment.  Owning a gun loses one their right to the First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as the Bill of Rights.

Interesting. 

_____________________________

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

I don’t always wgah’nagl fhtagn. But when I do, I ph’nglui mglw’nafh R’lyeh.

(in reply to Nosathro)
Profile   Post #: 109
RE: If they know you're armed, you're safer - Bad guys ... - 12/29/2012 4:09:32 PM   
Nosathro


Posts: 3319
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: Orange County, California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

New York does require permits to purchase, requires the handgun to be registered and the owner licensed.

In New York, a permit and registration is not required to own a rifle or a shotgun, and a license to possess a handgun also serves as a license to carry unless restricted. What they published was the names and addresses of people with a license to possess and unless restricted carry a handgun.

K.



Wrong concealed weapons permits are seperate from owning.....and still it is a matter of public record ...so lst Amendment wins.....

P.S. Would you mind getting a waiting line number for me at the Hall of Records.....


Let me get this straight.  The newspaper has a right to the 1st amendment.  Owning a gun loses one their right to the First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as the Bill of Rights.

Interesting. 


FYI The Bill of Rights is Amendments 1 - 10. What I am supporting is a newspaper who published the names of people who owned firearms in the Westchester and Rockland Counties of New York, in fact they plan to publish more. There are those who have taken the position that what the newspaper did was wrong and endangered those, criminals would know attempt to steal the guns, nothing has been reported on that so far. I take the position that the newspaper did so under the lst Amendment and that the records where the obtained the information on owners was a matter of public record so in my view it was legal and the newspaper commented no moral wrong.

(in reply to Aylee)
Profile   Post #: 110
RE: If they know you're armed, you're safer - Bad guys ... - 12/29/2012 4:14:06 PM   
Nosathro


Posts: 3319
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: Orange County, California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

You forgot these talk about agenda-driven tunnel vision...

I didn't forget them. You falsely claimed that Lott's conclusion about the relationship between guns and crime in the United States has been discredited. Far from being discredited, there is no shortage of studies that support the connection he draws. People are free to look at the research, read the arguments and responses, and judge for themselves how well they think the conclusions connect with the data. But your opinions are not facts, and when you state them as such you can count on more often than not having to fold or go broke.

K.


And on the issues of "No shortages of studies that support Lott"..you have 10 that came for the link I posted...mind posting all the others you have?

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 111
RE: If they know you're armed, you're safer - Bad guys ... - 12/29/2012 4:23:00 PM   
Aylee


Posts: 24103
Joined: 10/14/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

New York does require permits to purchase, requires the handgun to be registered and the owner licensed.

In New York, a permit and registration is not required to own a rifle or a shotgun, and a license to possess a handgun also serves as a license to carry unless restricted. What they published was the names and addresses of people with a license to possess and unless restricted carry a handgun.

K.



Wrong concealed weapons permits are seperate from owning.....and still it is a matter of public record ...so lst Amendment wins.....

P.S. Would you mind getting a waiting line number for me at the Hall of Records.....


Let me get this straight.  The newspaper has a right to the 1st amendment.  Owning a gun loses one their right to the First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as the Bill of Rights.

Interesting. 


FYI The Bill of Rights is Amendments 1 - 10. What I am supporting is a newspaper who published the names of people who owned firearms in the Westchester and Rockland Counties of New York, in fact they plan to publish more. There are those who have taken the position that what the newspaper did was wrong and endangered those, criminals would know attempt to steal the guns, nothing has been reported on that so far. I take the position that the newspaper did so under the lst Amendment and that the records where the obtained the information on owners was a matter of public record so in my view it was legal and the newspaper commented no moral wrong.


Yeah, I know what the BOR is.  Badly written. 

You still maintain that the newspapers "freedom of press" supercedes the right to privacy of private individuals. 

Also, I posted these statutes on another thread:

quote:


http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?sh=printbill&bn=A09388&term


quote:

A. 9388 2

1 (II) A REQUEST FOR THE ENTIRE LIST OF LICENSEES, OR FOR ALL LICENSEES
2 IN A GEOGRAPHIC AREA, SHALL BE DENIED, EXCEPT TO ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT
3 AGENCY OR ANY ENTITY ACTING ON BEHALF OF OR PROVIDING SERVICES TO ANY
4 LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.
5 FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SUBDIVISION, THE TERM "LAW ENFORCEMENT AGEN-
6 CY" SHALL MEAN THE DIVISION OF STATE POLICE, ANY NEW YORK STATE COUNTY
7 SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, ANY POLICE DEPARTMENT OF ANY CITY, VILLAGE OR TOWN
8 WITHIN NEW YORK STATE, THE POLICE FORCE OF ANY NEW YORK STATE AUTHORITY
9 OR AGENCY, THE STATE POLICE FORCE OF ANY OTHER STATE, ANY FEDERAL LAW
10 ENFORCEMENT AGENCY AND ANY DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE IN NEW YORK STATE.
11 S 2. This act shall take effect immediately.


Also: http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/12/27/0245/1525

I wonder if any of those whose addresses were published are immediate family members of federal officials or employees, and covered by 18 USC Section 119, which prohibits publishing home addresses for intimidation. Or if the internet publication of home addresses of gun owners can be considered cyber stalking, cyber-bullying, harassment or invasion of privacy under state laws?


But, hey, you are probably giving David Gregory a pass as well since he is a member of the press. 

I find this reprehensible.

_____________________________

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

I don’t always wgah’nagl fhtagn. But when I do, I ph’nglui mglw’nafh R’lyeh.

(in reply to Nosathro)
Profile   Post #: 112
RE: If they know you're armed, you're safer - Bad guys ... - 12/29/2012 4:25:47 PM   
Okeanos


Posts: 62
Joined: 9/1/2011
From: Athens, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto
That way, if he or she parks blocking my driveway, I can bring my own firearm with me when I tell him or her to move the car, rather than be shot and killed by him or her because I wasn't be able to defend myself. If we're both armed, it will then just be a matter of who shoots first and most accurately (I won the New England Army Reserves/National Guard pistol championship 3 years in a row, so I'm confident I'd win that gunfight).

Esqueez me, but that does not sound very smart to me. Now, instead of an argument between two people where one of them might be packing we have an argument between two people where one might be packing and the other is definitely packing. The chances of a bloodshed have just gone through the roof.

Also, in an up close and personal confrontation between two armed people, I would guess that in 9 out of 10 cases the outcome is determined by who shoots first. (Usually there is no chance to defend oneself.) So, are you going to approach the guy who is blocking your driveway with a gun drawn out, loaded, and with the safety off? Are you that kind of person?

(in reply to Fightdirecto)
Profile   Post #: 113
RE: If they know you're armed, you're safer - Bad guys ... - 12/29/2012 4:50:06 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto

If I am entitled, by law, to know if my neighbor is a sex offender, to protect my grandchildren when they are visiting, I should be entitled to know if my neighbor owns a firearm.

He or she has every right to own a firearm LEGALLY - but I should have a right to know if he does.

That way, if he or she parks blocking my driveway, I can bring my own firearm with me when I tell him or her to move the car, rather than be shot and killed by him or her because I wasn't be able to defend myself. If we're both armed, it will then just be a matter of who shoots first and most accurately (I won the New England Army Reserves/National Guard pistol championship 3 years in a row, so I'm confident I'd win that gunfight).

In short, I should be able to know if my neighbors are doing something that might endanger my life or the lives of my family - even if what they are doing is LEGAL.

Lastly, nowhere in the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is there anything that says that the right to bear arms includes a right to anonymity.


wrong he is doing nothing wrong or illegal and puting a gun owner in the same class as a sex offender is inulting

(in reply to Fightdirecto)
Profile   Post #: 114
RE: If they know you're armed, you're safer - Bad guys ... - 12/29/2012 4:52:53 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Okeanos

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto
That way, if he or she parks blocking my driveway, I can bring my own firearm with me when I tell him or her to move the car, rather than be shot and killed by him or her because I wasn't be able to defend myself. If we're both armed, it will then just be a matter of who shoots first and most accurately (I won the New England Army Reserves/National Guard pistol championship 3 years in a row, so I'm confident I'd win that gunfight).

Esqueez me, but that does not sound very smart to me. Now, instead of an argument between two people where one of them might be packing we have an argument between two people where one might be packing and the other is definitely packing. The chances of a bloodshed have just gone through the roof.

Also, in an up close and personal confrontation between two armed people, I would guess that in 9 out of 10 cases the outcome is determined by who shoots first. (Usually there is no chance to defend oneself.) So, are you going to approach the guy who is blocking your driveway with a gun drawn out, loaded, and with the safety off? Are you that kind of person?

I would hope he was making a rediculous statement toemphisize an invalid point

(in reply to Okeanos)
Profile   Post #: 115
RE: If they know you're armed, you're safer - Bad guys ... - 12/29/2012 4:57:44 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro


quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

Sorry, you start a war, you don't get to bitch how your victim beats you.

The fucking Japanese were trying to use plague on us, fuck em.


Interesting note the Indian Judge on the world court in Japan after the war ruled the US started the war with Japan.

the world court in La Hauge(sp)


General MacAruther convened a court made up of various legal scholars from the countries that were are fought Japn, the purpose was just as the Nuremburg trials. However, lawyers for the some of the defendents argued before this court the US caused the war, the Judge from Indian agreed. Many of the lawyers defending the Japanese were from US.

and during the first Menedeze trial one juror voted for aquital she felt sorry for them because they had lost their parents


And this has to do with the topic..how?

It required the same contact with reality that the Indian Judge showed in ruling that the US started the war with Japan

(in reply to Nosathro)
Profile   Post #: 116
RE: If they know you're armed, you're safer - Bad guys ... - 12/29/2012 10:48:38 PM   
Nosathro


Posts: 3319
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: Orange County, California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

New York does require permits to purchase, requires the handgun to be registered and the owner licensed.

In New York, a permit and registration is not required to own a rifle or a shotgun, and a license to possess a handgun also serves as a license to carry unless restricted. What they published was the names and addresses of people with a license to possess and unless restricted carry a handgun.

K.



Wrong concealed weapons permits are seperate from owning.....and still it is a matter of public record ...so lst Amendment wins.....

P.S. Would you mind getting a waiting line number for me at the Hall of Records.....


Let me get this straight.  The newspaper has a right to the 1st amendment.  Owning a gun loses one their right to the First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as the Bill of Rights.

Interesting. 


FYI The Bill of Rights is Amendments 1 - 10. What I am supporting is a newspaper who published the names of people who owned firearms in the Westchester and Rockland Counties of New York, in fact they plan to publish more. There are those who have taken the position that what the newspaper did was wrong and endangered those, criminals would know attempt to steal the guns, nothing has been reported on that so far. I take the position that the newspaper did so under the lst Amendment and that the records where the obtained the information on owners was a matter of public record so in my view it was legal and the newspaper commented no moral wrong.


Yeah, I know what the BOR is.  Badly written. 

You still maintain that the newspapers "freedom of press" supercedes the right to privacy of private individuals. 

Also, I posted these statutes on another thread:

quote:


http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?sh=printbill&bn=A09388&term


quote:

A. 9388 2

1 (II) A REQUEST FOR THE ENTIRE LIST OF LICENSEES, OR FOR ALL LICENSEES
2 IN A GEOGRAPHIC AREA, SHALL BE DENIED, EXCEPT TO ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT
3 AGENCY OR ANY ENTITY ACTING ON BEHALF OF OR PROVIDING SERVICES TO ANY
4 LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.
5 FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SUBDIVISION, THE TERM "LAW ENFORCEMENT AGEN-
6 CY" SHALL MEAN THE DIVISION OF STATE POLICE, ANY NEW YORK STATE COUNTY
7 SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, ANY POLICE DEPARTMENT OF ANY CITY, VILLAGE OR TOWN
8 WITHIN NEW YORK STATE, THE POLICE FORCE OF ANY NEW YORK STATE AUTHORITY
9 OR AGENCY, THE STATE POLICE FORCE OF ANY OTHER STATE, ANY FEDERAL LAW
10 ENFORCEMENT AGENCY AND ANY DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE IN NEW YORK STATE.
11 S 2. This act shall take effect immediately.


Also: http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/12/27/0245/1525

I wonder if any of those whose addresses were published are immediate family members of federal officials or employees, and covered by 18 USC Section 119, which prohibits publishing home addresses for intimidation. Or if the internet publication of home addresses of gun owners can be considered cyber stalking, cyber-bullying, harassment or invasion of privacy under state laws?


But, hey, you are probably giving David Gregory a pass as well since he is a member of the press. 

I find this reprehensible.


The source documents the newspaper used were within the public domain, anyone can have a copy. The individuals had no expection to the right to privacy.

(in reply to Aylee)
Profile   Post #: 117
RE: If they know you're armed, you're safer - Bad guys ... - 12/29/2012 11:01:06 PM   
Nosathro


Posts: 3319
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: Orange County, California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aynne88

You are comparing a criminal act to a completely legal act.

What kind of thinking is it that would make you actually contemplate bringing a gun to a parking dispute? People that think like that are part of the reason why I sometimes cringe when admitting I am a gun owner. That is just so over the top and reactionary. Oh and don't bet too soon, you aren't the only sharp shooter on the range cowboy. Jesus men and their testosterone.....ridiculous.


When you said bring a gun to a parking dispute..do you mean that Air Marshall in New York?

In 2003, a New York air marshal pulled his gun in a dispute over a parking space.

(in reply to Aynne88)
Profile   Post #: 118
RE: If they know you're armed, you're safer - Bad guys ... - 12/29/2012 11:02:56 PM   
Nosathro


Posts: 3319
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: Orange County, California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro


quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

Sorry, you start a war, you don't get to bitch how your victim beats you.

The fucking Japanese were trying to use plague on us, fuck em.


Interesting note the Indian Judge on the world court in Japan after the war ruled the US started the war with Japan.

the world court in La Hauge(sp)


General MacAruther convened a court made up of various legal scholars from the countries that were are fought Japn, the purpose was just as the Nuremburg trials. However, lawyers for the some of the defendents argued before this court the US caused the war, the Judge from Indian agreed. Many of the lawyers defending the Japanese were from US.

and during the first Menedeze trial one juror voted for aquital she felt sorry for them because they had lost their parents


And this has to do with the topic..how?

It required the same contact with reality that the Indian Judge showed in ruling that the US started the war with Japan


That's a strech.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 119
RE: If they know you're armed, you're safer - Bad guys ... - 12/29/2012 11:05:03 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

In New York, a permit and registration is not required to own a rifle or a shotgun, and a license to possess a handgun also serves as a license to carry unless restricted. What they published was the names and addresses of people with a license to possess and unless restricted carry a handgun.

Wrong concealed weapons permits are seperate from owning...

I apologize for the delay. Keeping you honest is more of a job than I have ready time for. The statement you quoted is not wrong. New York doesn't have "concealed weapons permits" and the only records of gun ownership are licenses to possess a handgun, which, unless specifically restricted, are licenses to carry.

Thank you for your time.

K.

(in reply to Nosathro)
Profile   Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: If they know you're armed, you're safer - Bad guys won't bother you Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.125