Arcane NJ law prevents retired cops from carrying concealed weapon

[JackDaWack 2,895]

And here is why that is wrong:

 

https://www.policeone.com/chiefs-sheriffs/articles/5938713-Retired-Ky-chief-slain-in-revenge-killing/

 

"As a thought exercise: As we are all proponents of 2A here, cop and citizen alike, should we work to eliminate the laws that allow cops to carry? Or to enact legislation that allows everyone to carry?"

 

Agreed and the point I was trying to make earlier in this thread!

Reminds me of Carol Brown..... cops arent the only people with enemies.

[jackandjill 683]

The emotional driven agenda. Very sad to watch

This is typical of a 2A discussion between ignorant, narrow, class minded, power tripped on one side and learned, grounded, big picture, true leaders like @HE on other side...

 

For people like AK, it's all about us vs them. He lives a world where he is holed up and constantly at odds with "them". Allowing "them" to carry would create a havoc in his world.

 

From his comments, it's clear that he degenerated into calling names even on fellow LEOs. He appears jealous of the respect other LEO get here, constantly tries to drive wedge between LEO and Citizens in these discussions.

 

Some more years of service, some real work or old age may bring some wisdom, don't hold your breath.

[Zeke 5,504]

It's obviously no longer a discussion. It's just agenda. I'm punching out

[Arthur Kill 0]

Your entitled to that opinion, but I feel that for the 2 accidental deaths by a CCW a year we can relax with calling it a public concern or pretending that it puts the general publics safety in danger. Any number of things can kill my family, about the last thing I'm worried about is a ccw holder. I have a greater chance hitting the lottery, literally.

If you want to claim it is much higher, then by all means have at it, but you also should consider that means many positive aspects of CCW go unnoticed as well.

 

Your making this an emotional issue and it isnt(if it were my kid). Statistically, I have a greater chance being the victim of a crime then the victim of a legal CCW holder. Based on actual logic and not emotion that tells me carrying is more beneficial then not.

 

You know what else has extremely odds low of occurring?  An incident where you would need to use a gun for self-defense.

 

So, while I agree with your low-probability assertions - they also present a perfect argument against your entire position.

 

When human beings are unnecessarily killed, other human beings are going to feel emotion.  They are also, as a civilized society, going try to prevent it from happening again because that emotion, effects their logic.  Certainly, emotion plays a large role for the CCW wannabe when the request is almost always accompanied by the phrase, "to protect myself and my family"  Some even add "my God given right" although I've never heard my priest, in his homily, reference a Bible passage about Jesus being pro-CCW. 

 

I'm not sure where this constant evoking of the word "emotion," as an end-all for this debate, is coming from?  I suspect it comes from an NRA talking point somewhere along the line and it is trying to be crow-barred in to this discussion where it's bearing doesn't effect either side disproportionately.  Emotion plays a role on both sides of this debate. 

 

 

 

It's obviously no longer a discussion. It's just agenda. I'm punching out

 

[Stonecoldchavez 92]

I need to stop what exactly?

 

The “preposterous notion” that individuals who handle firearms ought to be adequately trained and vetted?

 

Thanks for your input.

 

And you’re confident that I’M the one creating the rift as you sit here reading this onslaught of anti-police tirades issued on this forum, and say nothing.  Instead, you feel the need to criticize me?  Wonderful.  Looks like your desire to be an LCD hero of the hobbyists trumps the oath you took.  I hear there’s one in every agency.

 

I wonder if you have to balls to get up at roll-call this afternoon and make the declaration about “going into a gunfight tomorrow" with your gun-club buddies "before many brother officers.”  Go ahead Barn, tell them that their training and practical experience means nothing to you -- especially when you can glean accolades on a hobbyist website.  Granted, you don't see much down there in Mayberry, but choosing an amateur over the training and experience of a professional is a decision that is not based in reality -- and has been stated only to fulfill a previously decided agenda.  Citizen carry means more guns on the street, more guns on the street means more gun/police interaction and more interaction leads to more police shootings.  Thanks for standing up, "brother."  Maybe you'd like to re-position your stance before I decide that you’re just a f’ing disgrace to the shield?

 

 

 

AK-

 

How do explain CCW in PA and other states then? How do the LEO's in PA deal everyday with the thousands of CCW carriers? Where is the "mass hayhem" you mention for the law-abiding citizens in these states?

 

I find your mind set of law-abiding citizens disturbing. You assume all of us are "bad". No one is against armed people being trained. We just know that NJ will put unrealistic and financial burdens on the people to make CCW unaffordable and unobtainable to the people.

 

What is a "CCW wannabe"?  Another example of you talking down to us.

 

S.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

You know what else has extremely odds low of occurring? An incident where you would need to use a gun for self-defense.

 

So, while I agree with your low-probability assertions - they also present a perfect argument against your entire position.

 

When human beings are unnecessarily killed, other human beings are going to feel emotion. They are also, as a civilized society, going try to prevent it from happening again because that emotion, effects their logic. Certainly, emotion plays a large role for the CCW wannabe when the request is almost always accompanied by the phrase, "to protect myself and my family" Some even add "my God given right" although I've never heard my priest, in his homily, reference a Bible passage about Jesus being pro-CCW.

 

I'm not sure where this constant evoking of the word "emotion," as an end-all for this debate, is coming from? I suspect it comes from an NRA talking point somewhere along the line and it is trying to be crow-barred in to this discussion where it's bearing doesn't effect either side disproportionately. Emotion plays a role on both sides of this debate.

 

 

 

 

Author, your entire argument about CCW has been that average Joe isn't trained like cops to carry a weapon in order to prevent the accidents that happen... Your entire argument has been about preserving the general publics safety. It's been pointed out to you, multiple times, that your assertions are not accurate statements, and are purely based on your emotional responses. I'm willing to walk away and agree to disagree, but you want to continue to make false assertions i will be glad to counter them.

 

Again lets try and be objective, maybe you can point out where my emotion is driving my argument...

 

"In 2013, an estimated 1,163,146 violent crimes occurred nationwide"

 

1 out of every 274 people will be the victim of a violent crime per year according to the FBI crime statistics.

Now, lets pretend that a different person is victimized each time over a span of a life time (75 years), that means you have a 1 in 4 chance of being the victim of a violent crime in your life.

 

1 out of 159,450,000 persons will be the victim of an accident of a CCW per year.

Which means in a life time i have a 1 in 2,126,000 chance of being the victim of a CCW accident.

 

I think we can agree on an error rate that some CCW accidents go undocumented, just like many violent crimes go undocumented.

 

So, are you really trying to compare those odds as being the same low chance occurrence? or do you think i cant calculate odds and statistics?

 

By the logic of statistics 40 people in my town will be the victim of violent crime. While .000006 people would be endangered by CCW if it were legal, this year alone.

 

 

You certainly don't have the authority to come in here and put words in mine or anyone else mouth. Protecting yourself with a gun is a Right, that's not an emotional response... it's a statement written on the governing document of this country and explained in the federalist papers by the people who wrote it.

 

Emotion is a talking point because you have special people trying to ban guns like "assault weapons" when they account for least amount of crime because people feel(see emotion) that people just shouldn't have them... that is an emotional argument... that has literally been an iteration of your entire argument this entire time...

Your playing the "if it saves just one life" argument.

[Shane45 807]

AK, I will take your absence of a response to me as an admission of defeat. You can go explain your "greater good" position to those in Chicago but I think they will disagree with you too.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/24/chicago-crime-rate-drops-as-concealed-carry-gun-pe/?page=all

 

Things you are incapable of:

Humility

Admitting that the possibility exists that your TO or Admin or mommy and daddy that fed you a giant pitcher of coolaid could possibly be wrong.

Logical discussion.

 

As such you are indeed a mindless record playing endlessly. Don't bother to respond to me. You are a lost cause unworthy of any more of my efforts. Enjoy your lurker status as I am sure you hold the new record of being on the most ignore lists.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

Author, you certainly don't have to respond to this question but... What brought you to NJGF?

[Arthur Kill 0]

Author, your entire argument about CCW has been that average Joe isn't trained like cops to carry a weapon in order to prevent the accidents that happen... Your entire argument has been about preserving the general publics safety. It's been pointed out to you, multiple times, that your assertions are not accurate statements, and are purely based on your emotional responses. I'm willing to walk away and agree to disagree, but you want to continue to make false assertions i will be glad to counter them.

 

Again lets try and be objective, maybe you can point out where my emotion is driving my argument...

 

"In 2013, an estimated 1,163,146 violent crimes occurred nationwide"

 

1 out of every 274 people will be the victim of a violent crime per year according to the FBI crime statistics.

Now, lets pretend that a different person is victimized each time over a span of a life time (75 years), that means you have a 1 in 4 chance of being the victim of a violent crime in your life.

 

1 out of 159,450,000 persons will be the victim of an accident of a CCW per year.

Which means in a life time i have a 1 in 2,126,000 chance of being the victim of a CCW accident.

 

I think we can agree on an error rate that some CCW accidents go undocumented, just like many violent crimes go undocumented.

 

So, are you really trying to compare those odds as being the same low chance occurrence? or do you think i cant calculate odds and statistics?

 

By the logic of statistics 40 people in my town will be the victim of violent crime. While .000006 people would be endangered by CCW if it were legal, this year alone.

 

 

You certainly don't have the authority to come in here and put words in mine or anyone else mouth. Protecting yourself with a gun is a Right, that's not an emotional response... it's a statement written on the governing document of this country and explained in the federalist papers by the people who wrote it.

 

Emotion is a talking point because you have special people trying to ban guns like "assault weapons" when they account for least amount of crime because people feel(see emotion) that people just shouldn't have them... that is an emotional argument... that has literally been an iteration of your entire argument this entire time...

Your playing the "if it saves just one life" argument.

 

Your numbers are not accurate – especially considering the age, economic standing and location of many here that want to carry.  But I appreciate you spending the time to assemble them.  Ask yourself – will 40 people in your town really be the victim of a violent crime this year?  That’s emotion, not logic.

 

In the end, it doesn’t matter as I’ve already told you that I agree with your contention that the odds of being accidentally killed by an untrained CCW holder are very low – as are the chances of you needing a gun in a self-defense situation.

 

But statistically low probabilities are not the standard by which a civil society prevents unnecessary deaths (ie drunk driving, child restraint, lead in paint, etc.) – the standard is, can we save lives, even one life.  And it’s perfectly LOGICAL because we value human life.  I suppose you can use that argue on either side of this debate – this maybe the cause of the stubbornness on all involved.

 

The second amendment was purposely written to be ambiguous – that fact is stated by it’s authors in no uncertain terms within in The Federalist.  The second amendment clearly states that the people should have guns -- but it cleverly leaves the details of the execution of that ideology, and leaves it up to the modern community and our system of checks-and-balances.  Anyone that talks about an absolute translation of the second amendment is only displaying their own ignorance.

 

[Arthur Kill 0]

AK, I will take your absence of a response to me as an admission of defeat. You can go explain your "greater good" position to those in Chicago but I think they will disagree with you too.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/24/chicago-crime-rate-drops-as-concealed-carry-gun-pe/?page=all

 

Things you are incapable of:

Humility

Admitting that the possibility exists that your TO or Admin or mommy and daddy that fed you a giant pitcher of coolaid could possibly be wrong.

Logical discussion.

 

As such you are indeed a mindless record playing endlessly. Don't bother to respond to me. You are a lost cause unworthy of any more of my efforts. Enjoy your lurker status as I am sure you hold the new record of being on the most ignore lists.

 

 

 

Defeat. 

 

Ever consider the drugs you use recreationally are causing you to have deluded responses to real life situations?  Still want to uproot and move your entire family cause NJ won't let you carry a gun?  That's rational.

 

And okay, I won't respond to you anymore if you don't want me to -- I talk to too many emotionally disturbed people each day anyway.  I could use a break.

 

[Arthur Kill 0]

Author, you certainly don't have to respond to this question but... What brought you to NJGF?

 

Well, I'm an enthusiastic "gun" collector and I live in "NJ" -- not really a stretch now, is it?

 

FYI, not all enthusiasts go batshit crazy over politics -- from my experience, most don't and are not even members of the NRA.

 

Thanks for asking though.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

Your numbers are not accurate – especially considering the age, economic standing and location of many here that want to carry. But I appreciate you spending the time to assemble them. Ask yourself – will 40 people in your town really be the victim of a violent crime this year? That’s emotion, not logic.

 

In the end, it doesn’t matter as I’ve already told you that I agree with your contention that the odds of being accidentally killed by an untrained CCW holder are very low – as are the chances of you needing a gun in a self-defense situation.

 

But statistically low probabilities are not the standard by which a civil society prevents unnecessary deaths (ie drunk driving, child restraint, lead in paint, etc.) – the standard is, can we save lives, even one life. And it’s perfectly LOGICAL because we value human life. I suppose you can use that argue on either side of this debate – this maybe the cause of the stubbornness on all involved.

 

The second amendment was purposely written to be ambiguous – that fact is stated by it’s authors in no uncertain terms within in The Federalist. The second amendment clearly states that the people should have guns -- but it cleverly leaves the details of the execution of that ideology, and leaves it up to the modern community and our system of checks-and-balances. Anyone that talks about an absolute translation of the second amendment is only displaying their own ignorance.

 

My numbers are statistically correct. It's called probability, not certainty. Will 40 people die in my town, maybe not, will many in Newark probably.... There is nothing emotional about it. I live in the US and regardless of where my home is I travel through the state and country to parts with low and high levels of crime...

 

There is nothing emotional about it. The fact is, one town over has one of the highest levels of violent crime in this state and county.

 

The fact you think where I live has any impending difference in my safety is a laughable joke. Because crime has "boundaries".

 

I'm glad you took my very empirical statemtns and did nothing but add a level of emotion to it though. Again, point out why we have the problmes we have because we use emotion to drive our decisions instead logical reason.

 

Is it logical to outlaw swimming pools, ya know saving kids lives is much better then the leisurely activity of swimming.

 

 

 

Don't assume to know where I live or travel...

[Arthur Kill 0]

 

The fact you think where I live has any impending difference in my safety is a laughable joke. Because crime has "boundaries".

 

 

 Of course it does -- you used the UCR for your numbers, right?  How many locality breakdowns are included therein? 

 

[JackDaWack 2,895]

Well, I'm an enthusiastic "gun" collector and I live in "NJ" -- not really a stretch now, is it?

 

FYI, not all enthusiasts go batshit crazy over politics -- from my experience, most don't and are not even members of the NRA.

 

Thanks for asking though.

Well, not for nothing and no offense but your the one flooding the political discussions. I haven't seen much of anything from you as it relates to the hobby.

[Arthur Kill 0]

Well, not for nothing and no offense but your the one flooding the political discussions. I haven't seen much of anything from you as it relates to the hobby.

 

Yeah, I guess when I see all of this arrogant stupidity, it's kinda hard not to jump in the fray.  You?

 

[JackDaWack 2,895]

Of course it does -- you used the UCR for your numbers, right? How many locality breakdowns are included therein?

 

I'm still trying to figure out why you think I never leave my town. Or why you think the only places I travel to or through are low crime areas.

 

By your standards cops in low crime areas don't need guns then...

[JackDaWack 2,895]

Yeah, I guess when I see all of this arrogant stupidity, it's kinda hard not to jump in the fray. You?

 

Same, except what gets me going is when people refuse to except disagreements or bother to support their opinions with empirical evidence.

[Arthur Kill 0]

Is it logical to outlaw swimming pools, ya know saving kids lives is much better then the leisurely activity of swimming.

 

 

 

 

 

Haha!  Certainly, you don't mean to imply that society hasn't enacted and ton of legislation and implemented a ton more of rules and regulations concerning swimming pool safety, right?

 

 

 

 

I'm glad you took my very empirical statemtns and did nothing but add a level of emotion to it though. Again, point out why we have the problmes we have because we use emotion to drive our decisions instead logical reason.

 

 

 

Look, I'm all about backing a position with practical/empirical data -- and I believe I've done so when necessary in this debate.  But also, I don't think this issue should be enslaved to data that may not have an impact on on it's ultimate ramifications to public safety or society as a whole.

 

[JackDaWack 2,895]

Haha! Certainly, you don't mean to imply that society hasn't enacted and ton of legislation and implemented a ton more of rules and regulations concerning swimming pool safety, right?

 

No, but by your logic we shouldn't have them because we can save lives by eliminating them.... So if it saves just one life.... Maybe you should be laughing at yourself.

 

 

But let's stay on topic, although I'm glad you see how silly such an emotional argument can be. Your so concerned with CCW you fail to see how many more people you could save by eliminating swimming pools.

 

So is your objective satisfying the emotional needs of people? Or actually passing laws that make the most difference.

[Arthur Kill 0]

No, but by your logic we shouldn't have them because we can save lives by eliminating them.... So if it saves just one life.... Maybe you should be laughing at yourself.

 

 

But let's stay on topic, although I'm glad you see how silly such an emotional argument can be. Your so concerned with CCW you fail to see how many more people you could save by eliminating swimming pools.

 

Wha?

 

I never said anything about "eliminating" guns... someone is getting emotional but it ain't me!!

 

[JackDaWack 2,895]

Wha?

 

I never said anything about "eliminating" guns... someone is getting emotional but it ain't me!!

 

It's called a thought process. You want to eliminate people carrying firearms. Keep up buddy. Now your just pulling at straws because I don't think you've offered a single logical argument against my position.

[67gtonut 847]

And..... This one is so far off topic really.....  no worthy discussion coming from it....