New Yorkers... Give up your guns.

[SV_Dude]

That is a map for CCW permits. The blue shows that most of the country has turned into a "shall issue" state as opposed to a "may issue" which really means unless you're a leo, you can go F yourself.

 

[wallytoo]

thanks for the clarification.

big difference, too. because, for instance, nh is a permissible open-carry state, no permit needed. and vermont is a NO open-carry state, you must carry concealed.

 

[LINY4Runner]

Yup. This modest Ontario Rat1 is what I carry (although its in my pack and not immediately accessible) but I think this is even illegal around here......

Knives are a valuable tool to have on you at all time, I wind up using them at work constantly. Sadly some areas have ridiculous laws on them as well.

This is what I carried today. :lightsaber:

Some beautiful hardware...
[MENTION=96581]hikenbike[/MENTION]; the only thing that'll make a knife illegal in NY is if it's spring or gravity assisted...meaning that if you can open it any way other than pinching the blade with your fingers and physically pulling it then it's illegal.

Did I say mine was spring-assisted? Whoops.

 

[LINY4Runner]

While it is still bad in a few areas, it has gotten much better over the last 25 years for the majority of America.

I love how Vermont is like "f you guys"

 

[JBecker]

thanks for the clarification.

big difference, too. because, for instance, nh is a permissible open-carry state, no permit needed. and vermont is a NO open-carry state, you must carry concealed.

That's like Texas. No open carry of hand guns, only concealed. Here in VA we can open carry, though I never do unless I'm hunting.

 

[wallytoo]

it's interesting, in light of a somewhat disparaging earlier comment about new england, that none of the six states have changed status wrt CC over the timeframe depicted by the graphic. in fact, northern new england has been favorable for CC for a long time, longer than most other areas of the country.

 

[ndcent]

Wrong.

Being able to carry any gun anywhere at anytime must require comprehensive and regular qualifications IMO. That is all.

Seems totally reasonable to me. How anyone can reject this notion with a straight face baffles me.

 

[hikenbike]

Seems totally reasonable to me. How anyone can reject this notion with a straight face baffles me.

I shake my head too and I think anything less is completely irresponsible but its simply a matter of completely and dramatically different cultures within the same country. No one will ever completely be satisfied.

Keeps things interesting I guess.

This notion alone, if ever established, would be a major, major achievement for the pro-gun establishment and yet, there are many that you see a small sample of right here that still would be utterly dissatisfied.

 

[JBecker]

I shake my head too and I think anything less is completely irresponsible but its simply a matter of completely and dramatically different cultures within the same country. No one will ever completely be satisfied.

Keeps things interesting I guess.

This notion alone, if ever established, would be a major, major achievement for the pro-gun establishment and yet, there are many that you see a small sample of right here that still would be utterly dissatisfied.

It goes back to the first part of this post. Different cultures and opinions within the country. Given the map I posted on the previous page, most of the country agrees in the right for one to carry a firearm on their person if they so choose.

I tend to stay out of areas that restrict my right to do so, however I do go into DC a few times a year to watch the Capitals or the Nationals play. I like going to hockey games and baseball games though. Haven't been to NYC in about 8 years.

 

[nevada]

Seems totally reasonable to me. How anyone can reject this notion with a straight face baffles me.

assume something like that was implanted WHAT crimes would it prevent?

I shake my head too and I think anything less is completely irresponsible but its simply a matter of completely and dramatically different cultures within the same country. No one will ever completely be satisfied.

Keeps things interesting I guess.

This notion alone, if ever established, would be a major, major achievement for the pro-gun establishment and yet, there are many that you see a small sample of right here that still would be utterly dissatisfied.

its a feel-good solution to a problem that doesn't exist, and it fails to address the problem we DO have.

criminals wont go out to "qualify" and get their certificate proving they are worthy.

 

[hikenbike]

most of the country agrees in the right for one to carry a firearm on their person if they so choose.

I tend to stay out of areas that restrict my right to do so, however

As do I, but at least those here don't agree with the mandatory need to be qualified to use one. That's what I'll never understand.

When I went to a Ranger/Devil playoff game last year, it was super heated and there was a rabid woman Ranger fan that I told to shut up, called her "Snooki" and a few other colorful words. She lost it. If she'd had a gun, she definitely would have shot me dead. So we just threatened to beat her boyfriend if she came down and laid a hand on us. Needless to say, the boyfriend held her back. Devils won 4-1.

 

[SV_Dude]

Maybe something that would encourage firearm training is a discounted course for ccw holders?

I don't think that any one of us disagrees with the fact that training is important. I honestly don't see how someone would want to carry without some sort of training. The lack of training though should definitely not disqualify someone from leveling the field for self defense.

I cannot think of any time when someone who used their pistol to defend themselves ended up hurting a bystander. Sure, it can happen and I'm sure that at some point it may have. More times than not though, those who have had to use their weapon for self defense did harm to no one other than the bad guy.

 

[SV_Dude]

I told to shut up, called her "Snooki" and a few other colorful words. She lost it. If she'd had a gun, she definitely would have shot me dead.

Ever heard the saying "An armed society is a polite society"? If you knew that she may have been armed do you think you would have been more careful about how you talk to people? Especially in a game where fans root for their teams and talk trash about the other teams. Let fans be fans without getting personal. If you talked to my wife like that we definitely would have had an issue too.

 

[bofa]

As do I, but at least those here don't agree with the mandatory need to be qualified to use one. That's what I'll never understand.

When I went to a Ranger/Devil playoff game last year, it was super heated and there was a rabid woman Ranger fan that I told to shut up, called her "Snooki" and a few other colorful words. She lost it. If she'd had a gun, she definitely would have shot me dead. So we just threatened to beat her boyfriend if she came down and laid a hand on us. Needless to say, the boyfriend held her back. Devils won 4-1.

If you find yourself doing this often, I can see why you would be concerned about others being armed. Keep to yourself and you'll have less altercations.

Maybe something that would encourage firearm training is a discounted course for ccw holders?

I don't think that any one of us disagrees with the fact that training is important. I honestly don't see how someone would want to carry without some sort of training. The lack of training though should definitely not disqualify someone from leveling the field for self defense.

I cannot think of any time when someone who used their pistol to defend themselves ended up hurting a bystander. Sure, it can happen and I'm sure that at some point it may have. More times than not though, those who have had to use their weapon for self defense did harm to no one other than the bad guy.

I'm all for training but there are two lingering counterpoints that it simply does not address...

-Those already breaking the law will not go to training. It's just more work/cost/maintenance for the rest of us. Just because I'm willing doesn't mean it should be forced upon others (hint, hint [MENTION=96581]hikenbike[/MENTION] ).
-Would we really want those breaking the law or looking to cause mass casualties to have such training?

 

[hikenbike]

Ever heard the saying "An armed society is a polite society"? If you knew that she may have been armed do you think you would have been more careful about how you talk to people? Especially in a game where fans root for their teams and talk trash about the other teams. Let fans be fans without getting personal. If you talked to my wife like that we definitely would have had an issue too.

She looked and acted EXACTLY like Snooki. I would have gladly taken the bullet.

You don't go into an enemy building (and a normally tame one at that - this isn't Philadelphia) looking and abusively swearing like she was, in a beer soaked crowd, and not expect to take some heavily foul verbiage right back.

I'm thinking your wife would have NEVER acted as she did. Lighten up.

 

[hikenbike]

If you find yourself doing this often, I can see why you would be concerned about others being armed. Keep to yourself and you'll have less altercations.

When you live west of the Mississippi, do they remove your sense of humor? Why so serious? Meant to be funny. Ya know.....ha ha..... Guess not.

I'm all for training but there are two lingering counterpoints that it simply does not address...

-Those already breaking the law will not go to training. It's just more work/cost/maintenance for the rest of us. Just because I'm willing doesn't mean it should be forced upon others (hint, hint [MENTION=96581]hikenbike[/MENTION] ).
-Would we really want those breaking the law or looking to cause mass casualties to have such training?

I'm speechless. And completely done here. Thanks. Happy New Year!!

 

[SV_Dude]

I'm all for training but there are two lingering counterpoints that it simply does not address...

-Those already breaking the law will not go to training. It's just more work/cost/maintenance for the rest of us. Just because I'm willing doesn't mean it should be forced upon others (hint, hint [MENTION=96581]hikenbike[/MENTION] ).
-Would we really want those breaking the law or looking to cause mass casualties to have such training?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying it should be required, just encouraged and maybe discounted for ccw permit holders.

To comment on your counterpoints though... If you ever have the need to fire your gun in public or anywhere near anyone you probably should have given yourself some training on what to do. At a minimum have some muscle memory of putting the target in the sights while under stress and trigger work. Criminals aren't the ccw holders so odds are they will not have any special training.

 

[ndcent]

If you find yourself doing this often, I can see why you would be concerned about others being armed. Keep to yourself and you'll have less altercations.



I'm all for training but there are two lingering counterpoints that it simply does not address...

-Those already breaking the law will not go to training. It's just more work/cost/maintenance for the rest of us. Just because I'm willing doesn't mean it should be forced upon others (hint, hint [MENTION=96581]hikenbike[/MENTION] ).
-Would we really want those breaking the law or looking to cause mass casualties to have such training?

Respectfully, those aren't counterpoints they are straw man arguments meant to minimalize his advocacy.

He's advocating comprehensive recurring training and requirements for carrying a deadly weapon. Responding that it won't deter criminals has nothing to do with the former.

 

[nevada]

Respectfully, those aren't counterpoints they are straw man arguments meant to minimalize his advocacy.

He's advocating comprehensive recurring training and requirements for carrying a deadly weapon. Responding that it won't deter criminals has nothing to do with the former.

again, its a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

 

[JBecker]

-Would we really want those breaking the law or looking to cause mass casualties to have such training?

The military has had this problem for years with gang members.