School Shooting Newtown CT

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by adpimiz

I guess I should have clarified. I was talking more about break-ins that would be threatening to my family's life. If a criminal broke into my home with an intent to kill (rare, but it does happen to people), the only way for us to protect ourselves would be with a weapon. Sorry, that's reality. Police simply can't be there in enough time to protect citizens who live out in the boondocks. You really can't expect people who live out in the country to not be able to defend themselves.

But under that scenario, the situation is likely to be the same whether you live in the boondocks (and there are boondocks on the East and West coasts, so yes we do understand) or in the middle of a city. Unless the police station is next door, there is a strong likelihood that the police can't get there in time. So I don't know how much of that is a true East/West Coast vs average Middle America difference. (I do recognize that there are places that are a long way from civilization.)

I get why you feel the need to have guns for protection, and I respect that.

I've never had guns in the house, whether as a child or an adult, which I also think is a choice that warrants respect. There are risks and benefits both ways, and either choice can be a reasonable and informed one.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by Jeff OTMG

It has nothing to do with that aspect of being tangible or intangible. It is the exercise of at right. If we could require a test or standard be applied to firearms ownership, which I think would be a good idea but oppose based on the difference in a 'right' and a 'privledge', it would then be required for other rights under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. You must take a test to know the position of candidates before being allowed to vote. The press must have tested knowledge of a topic before being allowed to report on the topic. (This would be great for reporters speaking about 'assault rifles', 'high powered' ammunition, and automatic firearms.) Religion has probably caused more human on human death in the history of man. License religion so that the government can protect us from violent followers of some religions. People would also have to be licensed to practice their religion and if you claim to be Christian forget about being allowed to get an abortion. I support the right of a woman to choose, but I personally find it abhorent. My belief is based on religion and I believe that the governement cannot force a religious belief on the general populous. We are born with rights. Those rights are in the Constitution. Beyond that are privledges, which can be licensed and controlled by the government and I don't want to see rights become privledges. Rights must be exercised with responsibility and I do see some advantages to licensing rights, especially when it comes to voting, but I must oppose any attempt to regulate rights.

There are rights that are regulated everyday. One that comes to mind is the right to vote. And of course that doesn't even take into account that the second amendment specifically talks about a well regulated militia. Or that legally , using your own argument, only men between a certain age and women in the Guard are part of the militia.

Originally Posted by adpimiz

I just now saw this, and I completely agree.

As someone who has lived out in the country her entire life (except when I'm away at school), it's very comforting to know that my father has firearms that could protect us if someone were to break in to our home. People are vulnerable out in the middle of nowhere. It's an easy way for a criminal to try and commit a robbery without being noticed by passerbys, and calling 911 won't do much good when we have one sheriff for our entire county on duty at a time.

This is something that people who think nobody should ever possess a gun simply don't understand. Some people are responsible for their own safety.

I do understand that. However there is a big difference from somebody living out in the sticks and has a weapon IN THE HOME, for protection, and somebody in say Dallas who feels the need to walk around downtown with a weapon just because he can.

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

http://tv.yahoo.com/news/york-newspa...154215176.html

Wow, what a bunch of idiots. What could possibly be the point of doing this? Can't get a gun in upstate NY because you're a felon? No prob dude, just check the interactive map for a gun owner in your very own neighborhood and wait till he leaves on vacation or for work and just break in and steal his guns.

Umm you do realize that anybody has access to this information right?: While the people who do make the most use of sunshine laws are members of the news media, they are available for anybody to use.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by Kevin

So if someone breaks into your house, you're really going to assume he has the best of intentions?

No, I'm going to look at the statistics that show it is far more likely that I'd be accidentally shot by a member of my own family who owned a handgun in the house than for an armed intruder to show up and try to kill me.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

Umm you do realize that anybody has access to this information right?: While the people who do make the most use of sunshine laws are members of the news media, they are available for anybody to use.

Umm i'm like 99% sure that sunshine laws don't cover issuance of CHL permits.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

Umm i'm like 99% sure that sunshine laws don't cover issuance of CHL permits.

Both that article and a quick google search indicate that in New York, issuance of CHL permits are public records.

[adpimiz]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

No, I'm going to look at the statistics that show it is far more likely that I'd be accidentally shot by a member of my own family who owned a handgun in the house than for an armed intruder to show up and try to kill me.

Wow, that's ignorant. My dad keeps his firearms locked up - not accessible to anyone but him, but accessible enough that he could easily get a hold of one in an emergency. Nobody has gotten accidentally shot in the 30 + years that my father has owned handguns.

Sorry, but if someone comes into my home and wants to murder me, I'd like to know I'm protected.

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by adpimiz

Wow, that's ignorant. My dad keeps his firearms locked up - not accessible to anyone but him, but accessible enough that he could easily get a hold of one in an emergency. Nobody has gotten accidentally shot in the 30 + years that my father has owned handguns.

Sorry, but if someone comes into my home and wants to murder me, I'd like to know I'm protected.

It's ignorant that the statistics are what they are?

Hm.. ok.....

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by adpimiz

Wow, that's ignorant. My dad keeps his firearms locked up - not accessible to anyone but him, but accessible enough that he could easily get a hold of one in an emergency. Nobody has gotten accidentally shot in the 30 + years that my father has owned handguns.

Would that everyone were as responsible as your father, but surely you know that anecdotes =/= data. DBB said "statistics show," and there are studies that back her up, though many can and do question the validity or accuracy of those studies.

Honest question, not meant to argue with you but meant to help me understand how you see this: If the guns in your house are not accessible to anyone but your father, then how does having them help if an intruder wanting to harm you or others in your family comes when your father's not home?

[adpimiz]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Would that everyone were as responsible as your father, but surely you know that anecdotes =/= data. DBB said "statistics show," and there are studies that back her up, though many can and do question the validity or accuracy of those studies.

Honest question, not meant to argue with you but meant to help me understand how you see this: If the guns in your house are not accessible to anyone but your father, then how does having them help if an intruder wanting to harm you or others in your family comes when your father's not home?

Some people may not be very responsible when owning firearms, but that doesn't mean they should be taken from those who are.

Maybe I should have been more specific. My mother, brother, and I (who are all over 21 and know how to handle a firearm), know how to access them. If none of us were home, fine, but then none of our lives would be threatened. Yes, stuff can be replaced, but lives cannot. It can be scary living thirty miles from any real civilization. I hope that nobody in my family ever needs to use one of our firearms in an emergency, but if someone is kicking down my door at three am and the nearest sheriff is an hour away, it sure is a relief to know that I am able to protect myself.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by adpimiz

Some people may not be very responsible when owning firearms, but that doesn't mean they should be taken from those who are.

And the post to which you were responding didn't suggest otherwise. (In fact, I don't recall anyone in this thread suggesting that taking guns away from the typical owner, responsible or otherwise, would be in any way a reasonable solution.) The post you were responding to was an explanation of why DBB doesn't believe that having guns in the house is the solution, despite coming from a similar background of living where police aren't close by.

You have a reasonable and defensible position on this, but so does she. Sometimes it really doesn't help to read more into what people are saying than what they actually are saying.

Maybe I should have been more specific. My mother, brother, and I (who are all over 21 and know how to handle a firearm), know how to access them.

Thanks.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Both that article and a quick google search indicate that in New York, issuance of CHL permits are public records.

Yes it appears that NY is a little more lax in the release of that information but it doesn't answer the question of why they did it or what they were hoping to achieve with this. Ostracize gun owners? Treat CHL holders like they are rapists? I can't think of one single good reason to publish these peoples names, can you?

Some fallout from the map.
http://newyork.newsday.com/news/nati...-say-1.4407323

Inmates at the Rockland County jail are taunting corrections officers by saying they know the guards' home addresses -- information they got from the list published by Westchester-based newspaper, Rockland County Sheriff Louis Falco said.
"Since about 9:30 this morning, I've been in a meeting with my corrections officers and their unions. They have inmates coming up to them and telling them exactly where they live. That's not acceptable to me," Falco said at a news conference Friday morning in New City, where local leaders condemned the list.

"When I saw the list, I had an immediate flood of emotions that I cannot even describe to you," said Swift. "I originally obtained a gun permit because I had previously been married to a man who attempted to strangle me . . . The first emotion I felt was, 'Oh my gosh, he can find me.'"

Wieder (D-Spring Valley) called the publication of the list "irresponsible journalism" and said he now fears for his safety because the map broadcast that he does not have a gun license. At the news conference Friday morning, he handed a $150 certified check and a completed pistol permit application to Rockland County Clerk Paul Piperato.
"I never owned a gun but now I have no choice," Wieder said. "I have been exposed as someone that has no gun. And I'll do anything, anything to protect my family."

If the purpose is "public safety", they should publish the names and addresses of people being treated for psychological disorders, since that appears to be the real common denominator in all of these mass killings.

[AOII Angel]

HIPAA

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

HIPAA

Laws can be changed. If the media can use it's influence to alter(try to at least) the peoples views on gun control they can do the same with those pesky, outdated HIPAA laws. It's in the best interest of the people to know who these crazies are so theses mass killings can finally stop!!

AHHHHHRGGGHH!

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

Laws can be changed. If the media can use it's influence to alter(try to at least) the peoples views on gun control they can do the same with those pesky, outdated HIPAA laws. It's in the best interest of the people to know who these crazies are so theses mass killings can finally stop!!

AHHHHHRGGGHH!

Realize that very few people that seek treatment for mental illness commit crimes and that the people that shoot and kill people are not all mentally ill. It is a fallacy that all of these incidents are due to mental illness. BTW, while I find HIPAA annoying in many ways (mainly because people don't understand how to apply it) you would be very upset if someone violated your HIPAA rights and blasted your personal medical information to anyone...say your boss or your parents. There are good reasons for these laws.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Realize that very few people that seek treatment for mental illness commit crimes and that the people that shoot and kill people are not all mentally ill. It is a fallacy that all of these incidents are due to mental illness. BTW, while I find HIPAA annoying in many ways (mainly because people don't understand how to apply it) you would be very upset if someone violated your HIPAA rights and blasted your personal medical information to anyone...say your boss or your parents. There are good reasons for these laws.

I was being facetious there. I don't think someone who is seeking treatment for a mental illness is any more dangerous to society than an CHL holder but many people will disagree with that. Gun crimes in this country are extremely low given the estimated 280 million privately owned firearms that are out there. If we the people were as irresponsible with firearms as some activists and politicians pretend we are how come we aren't having 1,000+ shootings a day? More people are killed in DUI related car accidents every year in the U.S. than gun homicides (not including suicides). Typically gun crimes are committed by people using stolen or illegally obtained firearms, not CHL holders, so why make them the target?