Kilkrazy wrote:
The next thing is that someone at the ISP will publish the home contact info of the blogger.

If some gun owners go around to the map publisher's house, isn't there a risk of violence?

It's almost like people shouldn't publish private data in collected form, whether it's public domain or not, in order to push a political agenda, huh?

It would be tragically ironic if an angry gun owner got shot by a householder under "Castle" and "Stand Your Ground" laws.

Going back to the map, I am interested by the large number of permit holders in upstate NY compared to the small number in the Manhattan and Long Island areas.

Presumably it is partly correlated to population density. I thought Manhattan was pretty built up, though.

 Seaward wrote:
Well, Feinstein's proposal has been revealed.

Following is a summary of the 2013 legislation:

Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
120 specifically-named firearms
Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic
Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds

Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:
Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test
Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test
Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans
Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment
Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes and
Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons

Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
Background check of owner and any transferee;
Type and serial number of the firearm;
Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration

If this goes through, every firearm I own except my 1911 becomes an NFA gun.

The threat of NFA registration is enough to make me look into selling my AK simply because I don't bloody want to deal with it.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It would be tragically ironic if an angry gun owner got shot by a householder under "Castle" and "Stand Your Ground" laws.

Going back to the map, I am interested by the large number of permit holders in upstate NY compared to the small number in the Manhattan and Long Island areas.

Presumably it is partly correlated to population density. I thought Manhattan was pretty built up, though.

I'd say it's probably more to do with the fact that Manhattan is willing to issue a lot fewer permits than upstate NY. Permits are handled by the county, not the state, government.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
The threat of NFA registration is enough to make me look into selling my AK simply because I don't bloody want to deal with it.

Considering the registration time will be measured in years...yeah.

I suspect my stuff will just get stolen.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It would be tragically ironic if an angry gun owner got shot by a householder under "Castle" and "Stand Your Ground" laws.

Going back to the map, I am interested by the large number of permit holders in upstate NY compared to the small number in the Manhattan and Long Island areas.

Presumably it is partly correlated to population density. I thought Manhattan was pretty built up, though.

Edit: Ninja'd

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
The threat of NFA registration is enough to make me look into selling my AK simply because I don't bloody want to deal with it.

Considering the registration time will be measured in years...yeah.

I suspect my stuff will just get stolen.

My Garand still isn't on any lists, so I can't complain I suppose. Nor is the scout rifle I intend to build next year.

Not terribly worried though, this bill's more then likely DOA.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Going back to the map, I am interested by the large number of permit holders in upstate NY compared to the small number in the Manhattan and Long Island areas.

My guess would be police response times. The longer you have to wait for a cop, the more likely they are to want a gun of their own, just in case.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

My Garand still isn't on any lists, so I can't complain I suppose. Nor is the scout rifle I intend to build next year.

Not terribly worried though, this bill's more then likely DOA.

We can only hope. I threw some cash at the NRA-ILA and dashed off a couple letters to Senator Warner and my congressman.

 Seaward wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

My Garand still isn't on any lists, so I can't complain I suppose. Nor is the scout rifle I intend to build next year.

Not terribly worried though, this bill's more then likely DOA.

We can only hope. I threw some cash at the NRA-ILA and dashed off a couple letters to Senator Warner and my congressman.

I'd say put an order in to the CMP for a Garand now if you can XD

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I'd say put an order in to the CMP for a Garand now if you can XD

A Garand is way down on my list, much as I'd like to own one. Right now, I'm just trying to find someplace that still has 15-round P30 mags. And I wouldn't say no to a Colt 6920, though I don't really need it.

Here's an interesting tidbit to come out: apparently police response time between the 911 call and cops arrival on the scene was... less than spectacular. 20 min from 911 to arrival bad.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Here's an interesting tidbit to come out: apparently police response time between the 911 call and cops arrival on the scene was... less than spectacular. 20 min from 911 to arrival bad.

As the mustache-twirling psychopaths who own guns for personal protection have been saying for years: when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Calling the police in most serious self-defense scenarios basically amounts to giving the authorities a general idea of where to find your body.

 Seaward wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Here's an interesting tidbit to come out: apparently police response time between the 911 call and cops arrival on the scene was... less than spectacular. 20 min from 911 to arrival bad.

As the mustache-twirling psychopaths who own guns for personal protection have been saying for years: when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Calling the police in most serious self-defense scenarios basically amounts to giving the authorities a general idea of where to find your body.

"Will you put the knife away I'm trying to dial the police!"

 Seaward wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Here's an interesting tidbit to come out: apparently police response time between the 911 call and cops arrival on the scene was... less than spectacular. 20 min from 911 to arrival bad.

As the mustache-twirling psychopaths who own guns for personal protection have been saying for years: when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Calling the police in most serious self-defense scenarios basically amounts to giving the authorities a general idea of where to find your body.

So why not campaign for law enforcement to receive more funding, allowing for more officers on the street, more cars, helicopters etc.?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
So why not campaign for law enforcement to receive more funding, allowing for more officers on the street, more cars, helicopters etc.?

Because I don't believe there's a country on earth that has the spare cash to ensure there's an armed responder no less than twenty seconds away from every citizen in the nation at any given time.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Here's an interesting tidbit to come out: apparently police response time between the 911 call and cops arrival on the scene was... less than spectacular. 20 min from 911 to arrival bad.

As the mustache-twirling psychopaths who own guns for personal protection have been saying for years: when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Calling the police in most serious self-defense scenarios basically amounts to giving the authorities a general idea of where to find your body.

So why not campaign for law enforcement to receive more funding, allowing for more officers on the street, more cars, helicopters etc.?

Because travel time is still a thing.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Here's an interesting tidbit to come out: apparently police response time between the 911 call and cops arrival on the scene was... less than spectacular. 20 min from 911 to arrival bad.

As the mustache-twirling psychopaths who own guns for personal protection have been saying for years: when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Calling the police in most serious self-defense scenarios basically amounts to giving the authorities a general idea of where to find your body.

So why not campaign for law enforcement to receive more funding, allowing for more officers on the street, more cars, helicopters etc.?

You realize some people live in rural areas where police are easily half an hour away or more, right? Out west, there are places where police might be an hour or more away.

Not everybody lives in the city, and no amount of increased funding, more cars, or more helicopters is going to shorten police response times enough to do anything other than allow them to show up and take a report after an incident is already over in a lot of areas of the country.

 Hordini wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Here's an interesting tidbit to come out: apparently police response time between the 911 call and cops arrival on the scene was... less than spectacular. 20 min from 911 to arrival bad.

As the mustache-twirling psychopaths who own guns for personal protection have been saying for years: when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Calling the police in most serious self-defense scenarios basically amounts to giving the authorities a general idea of where to find your body.

So why not campaign for law enforcement to receive more funding, allowing for more officers on the street, more cars, helicopters etc.?

You realize some people live in rural areas where police are easily half an hour away or more, right? Out west, there are places where police might be an hour or more away.

Not everybody lives in the city, and no amount of increased funding, more cars, or more helicopters is going to shorten police response times enough to do anything other than allow them to show up and take a report after an incident is already over in a lot of areas of the country.

And what is the rate of violent crime in these rural areas? The communities must be quite small otherwise I assume they'd at least have a town sheriff (or whatever it's called) or something along those lines?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Here's an interesting tidbit to come out: apparently police response time between the 911 call and cops arrival on the scene was... less than spectacular. 20 min from 911 to arrival bad.

As the mustache-twirling psychopaths who own guns for personal protection have been saying for years: when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Calling the police in most serious self-defense scenarios basically amounts to giving the authorities a general idea of where to find your body.

So why not campaign for law enforcement to receive more funding, allowing for more officers on the street, more cars, helicopters etc.?

You realize some people live in rural areas where police are easily half an hour away or more, right? Out west, there are places where police might be an hour or more away.

Not everybody lives in the city, and no amount of increased funding, more cars, or more helicopters is going to shorten police response times enough to do anything other than allow them to show up and take a report after an incident is already over in a lot of areas of the country.

And what is the rate of violent crime in these rural areas? The communities must be quite small otherwise I assume they'd at least have a town sheriff (or whatever it's called) or something along those lines?

Crime in rural areas is lower than in cities, but that doesn't make it nonexistent. There is also law enforcement (generally county law enforcement, usually the sheriff's office/department), but that doesn't mean they can get to you quickly and they have a large area to cover. It takes time to drive places. I'm not sure what is so hard to understand about that.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
And what is the rate of violent crime in these rural areas? The communities must be quite small otherwise I assume they'd at least have a town sheriff (or whatever it's called) or something along those lines?

I'll use a decent rural area in Ohio known as Ashland, very rural, lots of farmland, and plenty of Amish (who generally don't report crimes anyways), and compare it to the next city over, Mansfield Ohio. These numbers are based on per 100,000 people

Murder: Ashland:4.6 Mansfield: 5.9 National Avg: 7
Forcible Rape: Ashland: 50.98 Mansfield: 94.72 National Avg: 32.2
Robbery: Ashland: 27.8 Mansfield: 199.3 National Avg: 205.8
Aggravated Assault: Ashland: 13.9 Mansfield: 136.2 National Avg: 336.5
Burglary: Ashland: 380.1 Mansfield: 1866.7 National Avg: 813.2
Larceny Theft: Ashland: 2405.5 Ashland: 4597.7 National Avg: 2601.7
Vehicle Theft: Ashland: 51 Mansfield: 159.8 National Avg: 501.5

As you can see Ashland has lower crime statistics that Mansfield which is a gakhole to be honest, but forcible rapes are well above the national average, murders and larceny thefts are near the national average. And this is a city that has a local police force AND is the county seat so it has a Sheriff's Department (not to mention the fething Highway Patrol).

Still looking for avg response time, but as someone that lived there for 5 years, it's not very quick...

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

And what is the rate of violent crime in these rural areas? The communities must be quite small otherwise I assume they'd at least have a town sheriff (or whatever it's called) or something along those lines?

Well, again, six armed robberies on this road in the last month. Criminal gangs out here know the cops are a long way off. My own area is dependent on the State Police, having no Sheriff below the county level and no local police at all.

Some of them are quite well equipped with firepower of their own. One of my neighbors depended on attack dogs and a security alarm to protect his house. When he got home, he found all seven dead, and his front door blown open.

It's also worth noting that Police Officers of any kind have no legal duty to protect you whatsoever.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
It's also worth noting that Police Officers of any kind have no legal duty to protect you whatsoever.

That can't be wholly true.

 AustonT wrote:
That can't be wholly true.

It actually is, from what I recall reading of the case. Supreme Court decision.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
That can't be wholly true.

It actually is, from what I recall reading of the case. Supreme Court decision.

Nope, I'm wrong, I don't think it's ever gone to SCOTUS. Warren vs. District of Columbia is the big one, though.

Right never went to SCOTUS but the case law is well established. If I'm a LEO I have absolutely no duty to protect you or risk my neck for yours.

The duty of a cop is not to protect you but to investigate crimes and capture criminals.

As the state trooper said when they finally did show up, they sit back,wait for the noise to stop, and then fingerprint the bodies.

 AustonT wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
It's also worth noting that Police Officers of any kind have no legal duty to protect you whatsoever.

That can't be wholly true.

I think you're referring to a CO case...

EDIT: yup... Supreme Court case:http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13096571268307866226&q=gonzales+v.+castle+rock&hl=en&as_sdt=2,47

The Supreme Court held in that case that even if the woman could establish that the police failed to enforce the TRO, that they were under no obligation to enforce it and thus she couldn’t sue them.

TBH... I think it's a wrong decision... but, what do I know...

 whembly wrote:
I think you're referring to a CO case...

It's a lot of cases. I found seven from across the country when I did a very cursory search. The police do not have a duty to actually protect you from anything.

 Seaward wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I think you're referring to a CO case...

It's a lot of cases. I found seven from across the country when I did a very cursory search. The police do not have a duty to actually protect you from anything.

Yup... just reinforcing your statement that LEO aren't liable to "protect" you. They certainly have a code/creed to provide protection as best as they can...

Between the case law and the average response time in most of the country I think it's safe to say you can't rely on the police for your protection.

Going back to the map, I am interested by the large number of permit holders in upstate NY compared to the small number in the Manhattan and Long Island areas.

That's what happens in a may-issue state. Some areas are more lenient than others. One county office may not issue to anyone that isn't politically connected, one may be almost shall-issue.

Same thing in California. If you can get in through all the backlog, you will be looking at an almost shall-issue situation in Sacramento county.....but good luck in any of the bay area counties unless you are:

A: A politician (They're better than us peasants)
B: A Badge-holder (They're also better than us peasants)
C: A contributor to someone`s re-election fund. (They're useful, and also better than us peasants.)

May it crack off into the ocean after I leave.

 SOFDC wrote:

Going back to the map, I am interested by the large number of permit holders in upstate NY compared to the small number in the Manhattan and Long Island areas.

That's what happens in a may-issue state. Some areas are more lenient than others. One county office may not issue to anyone that isn't politically connected, one may be almost shall-issue.

Same thing in California. If you can get in through all the backlog, you will be looking at an almost shall-issue situation in Sacramento county.....but good luck in any of the bay area counties unless you are:

A: A politician (They're better than us peasants)
B: A Badge-holder (They're also better than us peasants)
C: A contributor to someone`s re-election fund. (They're useful, and also better than us peasants.)

May it crack off into the ocean after I leave.

May-Issue permits are the bane of any free person's right to defend themselves. It's all well and good that NYC has the largest police force in the country, they cannot be in ever nook & cranny in that concrete jungle. Since getting a permit is de facto banned and knives over 3.5 inches are illegal to carry, better have your tape wrapped fists and other "non-lethal" methods against some determined criminals, I'm sure they'll give you a fair fight as well as first blood, especially with their illegally possessed weapons.

There's not enough police in this nation to cover every square inch of the major metropolitan areas to make crime go away. Crime exists/existed in every police state on this planet and will continue to forever. The tools might improve, but the motives haven't really changed over all of the years.

It's a damned travesty that children had to be the one's to suffer the pyschopath's delusional motives of "revenge" for taking away his Mother's attention, but she broke no laws in possessing those weapons, he certainly did by murdering her to commit more crime with illegally possessed firearms. He broke no less than 5 Connecticut state laws regarding firearms and at least 3-5 federal laws. No piece of paper could stop him though. No one should be using this tragedy for some misguided political gain. I don't care who they are, more laws won't make events like this go away.

All the more reason to better police ourselves as citizens and responsible firearms owners instead of arbitrary laws based off of some musings from California Senator who has a C&C license (but doesn't believe anyone else could possibly need one at all) and who also based her rulings in the last Assault Weapons ban off of what looked menacing in catalogs. That shows a categorical lack of any kind of knowledge of the subject beyond some cursory knowledge more than likely acquired from movies instead of some actual, tangible experience.

 Stormrider wrote:

No one should be using this tragedy for some misguided political gain. I don't care who they are, more laws won't make events like this go away.

As we speak, twitter is aflame with people trying to do that right now.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 dogma wrote:

FOIA requests cannot be denied on the basis of potential public harm.

Yes they can. They use the blanket 'national security' or 'executive privilege' and it ends up being a lengthy court battle, win or lose.

No, they really can't. The list of FOIA exemptions is quite specific, and none of them provide for a denial due to potential public harm. It is true that a FOIA requests could be denied using any of the existential exemptions for a reason other than specified, but that has nothing to do with the comment I made.

Also, there is no exemption that has anything to do with executive privilege. You may be thinking of the inter/intra-agency exemption.

 dogma wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 dogma wrote:

FOIA requests cannot be denied on the basis of potential public harm.

Yes they can. They use the blanket 'national security' or 'executive privilege' and it ends up being a lengthy court battle, win or lose.

No, they really can't. The list of FOIA exemptions is quite specific, and none of them provide for a denial due to potential public harm. It is true that a FOIA requests could be denied using any of the existential exemptions for a reason other than specified, but that has nothing to do with the comment I made.

Also, there is no exemption that has anything to do with executive privilege. You may be thinking of the inter/intra-agency exemption.

Guys... what are we arguing over?

The legality of publishing this information for mass consumption? Or, the morality of doing something like this?

 whembly wrote:

Guys... what are we arguing over?

The legality of publishing this information for mass consumption? Or, the morality of doing something like this?

Most likely the morality, though dispute quoted references the Federal FOIA law, which does not apply to state governments. In the relevant case we would need to reference New York's FOIL law which, to wit, has a personal privacy exemption, and an exemption that individuals may apply when submitting documents to the state.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Guys... what are we arguing over?

The legality of publishing this information for mass consumption? Or, the morality of doing something like this?

Most likely the morality, though dispute quoted references the Federal FOIA law, which does not apply to state governments. In the relevant case we would need to reference New York's FOIL law which, to wit, has a personal privacy exemption, and an exemption that individuals may apply when submitting documents to the state.

Ah... thanks.

Not familiar with NY's FOIL law... I find it odd that it isn't by default that one couldn't disseminate personal information like that.

 whembly wrote:

Not familiar with NY's FOIL law... I find it odd that it isn't by default that one couldn't disseminate personal information like that.

Its a question of what is, and is not, considered an unreasonable violation of personal privacy and New York has specific guidelines to determine that.

Interestingly, on reading the law, there is also an exemption for disclosures that may endanger any person. The list of exemptions is in section 87, subsection 2.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Is planned parenthood a government agency? So it has nothing to do with the situation.

And all physicians are already online in Oklahoma, including where they work. So I can already get that information.

Why does the pre-requisite need to be a government agency?

You're not answering my question.

A) It's legal to own firearms, but in NY you need to be licensed thus the state knows who and where you live.

B) In NY, it's legal to perform abortions and since they're licensed medical professionals, the state knows where they work and live.

Both A and B are legal.

If you're okay with some news agency (Gannett) publishing the whereabouts of the licensed gun owners, then you ought to be okay with Gannett (hypotetically) publishing the whereabout of those who works at Planned Parenthood.

Me... it's a slippery slope and wouldn't allow this sort of thing to happen, but I'm not sure if Gannett broke any laws.

What if Gannett published the names and addresses of everyone who had abortions in NY? Still just fine with it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Here's an interesting tidbit to come out: apparently police response time between the 911 call and cops arrival on the scene was... less than spectacular. 20 min from 911 to arrival bad.

As the mustache-twirling psychopaths who own guns for personal protection have been saying for years: when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Calling the police in most serious self-defense scenarios basically amounts to giving the authorities a general idea of where to find your body.

So why not campaign for law enforcement to receive more funding, allowing for more officers on the street, more cars, helicopters etc.?

Remember, the police have no duty to protect you. Thats settled case law.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AustonT wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
It's also worth noting that Police Officers of any kind have no legal duty to protect you whatsoever.

That can't be wholly true.

Thats extremely true. Its derived from NY case law. The police have no duty whatsoever to protect individual citizens.

Case update: Adam Lanza was confirmed to have left his stolen rifle in the car but did have four pistols in the school. It's also been reported that Lanza showed up at the school a week or so before hand and was involved in a physical altercation with four of the staff members.

Citation?

Sheriff Joe is getting into the act...


http://ktar.com/22/1598173/Sheriff-Arpaio-plans-to-put-armed-posse-members-at-schools

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio plans to start putting armed members of his volunteer posse near schools in the wake of the mass shooting in an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut.

Arpaio doesn’t plan to put posse members inside schools but will have them posted around the perimeters.

“Why not utilize the posse into patrolling schools in our areas?” Arpaio asks.

With what he thinks is no reason not to, he’ll start this new idea within the next week.

The specific schools are not yet known but volunteers will be spread throughout Arpaio’s jurisdiction and he has identified certain areas.

The posse members are qualified for the job, according to Arpaio.

“Our posses are well trained with over 100 hours of how to use weapons [and] they have authority under the elected sheriff,” Arpaio said. “I feel they’ll be a great asset to schools around our area.”

They would be armed with a side-arm and not a semi-automatic weapon.

Because school shootings are THAT frequent.

Mattman154 wrote:
Because school shootings are THAT frequent.

*shrugs*
If it makes everyone feel safe.. have at it. You wouldn't have to cover every school at the same time. Just let it be known that there is "posse" the do rounds in the school district. That may give the "whackos" a pause thinking... "damn, don't know when those guys will show up... should I?"

 AustonT wrote:
Citation?

From MSNBC: http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
Citation?

From MSNBC: http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495

The problem is so much bad reporting and misinformation has come out on this it's hard to say what's accurate anymore.

There's video footage of a press conference where the medical examiner says the Bushmaster was used to kill the victims, and I believe it is more recent than that MSNBC clip. I think there is a police press conference (it might be the same press conference) where they basically say the same thing.

 whembly wrote:
Sheriff Joe is getting into the act...

Of course he is. Why waste a good opportunity for publicity?

Frazzled wrote:What if Gannett published the names and addresses of everyone who had abortions in NY? Still just fine with it?

Medical consultations are privileged.

I would also oppose release of records of republican party members who had treatment for haemorrhoids, or gun owners who had treatment for eye or mental problems.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
Citation?

From MSNBC: http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495

Here's the problem I have with that.
"we are hearing from federal blah blah"
vs. the statement of the Medical Examiner
One of them is wrong, and somehow I trust an ME before a journalist. Do you know of a 223 pistol that's not a stubby AR?
Unless there's been another look at the bodies how is the discrepancy between the ME identifying 223 holes and the assertion of cable journalists that contradict that?

 Frazzled wrote:

What if Gannett published the names and addresses of everyone who had abortions in NY? Still just fine with it?

The disclosure of medical records is specifically prohibited under FOIL. No such specific prohibition exists for gun registry, though an argument could be made under the clause regarding denial on the basis of compromising safety. Particularly if the argument was made regarding the safety of gun owners.

I guess you could claim that the press should exhibit discretion regarding privacy, but I think it would be a bit unfair to single this one case out; as the press rarely considers privacy absent legal restriction. Indeed, its arguable as to whether or not they should.

Surely the point of owning a gun is to defend one's self.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Surely the point of owning a gun is to defend one's self.

That's true. And, actually, after looking back at the specific text, there is no provision for denial of a FOIL request on the basis of a general threat to safety. That only applies regarding criminal investigations. So, basically, strike the argument I just made, I was mistaken.

In order to deny a FOIL request for firearms registration, there would need to exist a separate statutory exemption, or an amended definition of "an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Surely the point of owning a gun is to defend one's self.

I always assumed it was to pick up chicks... I read somewhere that chicks love cold hard steel They may have been talking about a good chef's knife set...

Alfndrate wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Surely the point of owning a gun is to defend one's self.

I always assumed it was to pick up chicks... I read somewhere that chicks love cold hard steel They may have been talking about a good chef's knife set...

Women love a man tha can cook.

 AustonT wrote:

Alfndrate wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Surely the point of owning a gun is to defend one's self.

I always assumed it was to pick up chicks... I read somewhere that chicks love cold hard steel They may have been talking about a good chef's knife set...

Women love a man tha can cook.

Are you sure? 1950's Gentleman Bi-Quarterly says that Women love a man that loves a woman that can cook....

On topic though I feel that gun ownership can be broken into more than just to defend one's self. It can be used for sport (whether for target or game shooting), self defense, or for pure collection value.

Perhaps people need a lot of guns for different purposes.

 Alfndrate wrote:

On topic though I feel that gun ownership can be broken into more than just to defend one's self. It can be used for sport (whether for target or game shooting), self defense, or for pure collection value.

You forgot "overthrowing government fascists", and "establishing a homeland for race X".

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Perhaps people need a lot of guns for different purposes.

Some collections are a little ridiculous. Realistically your "average" gun owner that doesn't hunt or do competitive shooting. Probably only wants/needs 3 to 4 guns. Probably 1 to 2 pistols, a Rifle, and a Shotgun. I've got 2 guns, a rifle and a pistol. I probably don't need the rifle with the size of bullets that it fires, but it's fun to go out and just have fun with distance shooting. (head to the outdoor range with my buddies and see which of us can hit farther targets, etc...). My pistol is for indoor target practices and shooting, as well as home defense. The first activity aids in the second one.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Perhaps people need a lot of guns for different purposes.

Much like a table setting for an 8-course dinner.

 AustonT wrote:
Here's the problem I have with that.
"we are hearing from federal blah blah"
vs. the statement of the Medical Examiner
One of them is wrong, and somehow I trust an ME before a journalist. Do you know of a 223 pistol that's not a stubby AR?
Unless there's been another look at the bodies how is the discrepancy between the ME identifying 223 holes and the assertion of cable journalists that contradict that?

I tend to believe the AR was used as well, but I also have to wonder how familiar an ME in Sleepyville, CT is with gunshot wounds.

 dogma wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Perhaps people need a lot of guns for different purposes.

Much like a table setting for an 8-course dinner.

Quite, it's so embarrassing putting the wrong rifle out of for a social event.

Edit: On a side note from this, one of the more interesting things I've been informed about my hobby/sport/job/etc is that shooting firearms isn't fun. I don't speak for every gun owner but I can't think of any part of shooting sports that isn't fun. Sure you have to maintain safety, and there's the serious mental aspects to accommodate, but beyond miserable weather there's never been a time out in the field hunting or on the range plinking where I haven't been having fun.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Edit: On a side note from this, one of the more interesting things I've been informed about my hobby/sport/job/etc is that shooting firearms isn't fun. I don't speak for every gun owner but I can't think of any part of shooting sports that isn't fun. Sure you have to maintain safety, and there's the serious mental aspects to accommodate, but beyond miserable weather there's never been a time out in the field hunting or on the range plinking where I haven't been having fun.

*In my head while shooting* "I'm going to hate cleaning this tonight"

Something about cheap bulk remington .22s that dirty up a gun like no other.

Mattman154 wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Edit: On a side note from this, one of the more interesting things I've been informed about my hobby/sport/job/etc is that shooting firearms isn't fun. I don't speak for every gun owner but I can't think of any part of shooting sports that isn't fun. Sure you have to maintain safety, and there's the serious mental aspects to accommodate, but beyond miserable weather there's never been a time out in the field hunting or on the range plinking where I haven't been having fun.

*In my head while shooting* "I'm going to hate cleaning this tonight"

Something about cheap bulk remington .22s that dirty up a gun like no other.

Nah I don't mind cleaning either. I put a movie on and zone out.

 Seaward wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
Here's the problem I have with that.
"we are hearing from federal blah blah"
vs. the statement of the Medical Examiner
One of them is wrong, and somehow I trust an ME before a journalist. Do you know of a 223 pistol that's not a stubby AR?
Unless there's been another look at the bodies how is the discrepancy between the ME identifying 223 holes and the assertion of cable journalists that contradict that?

I tend to believe the AR was used as well, but I also have to wonder how familiar an ME in Sleepyville, CT is with gunshot wounds.

To be clear the state chief ME performed 7 of the autopsies and declared the wounds were from a rifle. So its not really an ME from sleepyville, unless your calling all of CT sleepy. Which bears the question what major cities are there in CT?

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Mattman154 wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Edit: On a side note from this, one of the more interesting things I've been informed about my hobby/sport/job/etc is that shooting firearms isn't fun. I don't speak for every gun owner but I can't think of any part of shooting sports that isn't fun. Sure you have to maintain safety, and there's the serious mental aspects to accommodate, but beyond miserable weather there's never been a time out in the field hunting or on the range plinking where I haven't been having fun.

*In my head while shooting* "I'm going to hate cleaning this tonight"

Something about cheap bulk remington .22s that dirty up a gun like no other.

Nah I don't mind cleaning either. I put a movie on and zone out.

Eh, I have the same attitude when it comes to painting. I love playing the game (Shooting), but hate painting minis (Cleaning).

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Quite, it's so embarrassing putting the wrong rifle out of for a social event.

Always remember, the 1911 is a dessert gun. A few, rich shots to cleanse the palette after a large meal.

Actually, all joking aside, that would be a fun shoot to organize. Eat a dinner course, and go shoot a gun.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Edit: On a side note from this, one of the more interesting things I've been informed about my hobby/sport/job/etc is that shooting firearms isn't fun. I don't speak for every gun owner but I can't think of any part of shooting sports that isn't fun. Sure you have to maintain safety, and there's the serious mental aspects to accommodate, but beyond miserable weather there's never been a time out in the field hunting or on the range plinking where I haven't been having fun.

I've heard that about playing contact sports. The usual refrain is "Doesn't it hurt?" Yeah it does, but its worth it when you feel the satisfaction of putting a blocker on his ass while chasing a kickoff, or hip-checking someone at center ice, or spearing the ball carrier after you came down across the rugby pitch, etc. Hell, shooting even has the advantage of not completely ruining your body.

 dogma wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Quite, it's so embarrassing putting the wrong rifle out of for a social event.

Always remember, the 1911 is a dessert gun. A few, rich shots to cleanse the palette after a large meal.

Actually, all joking aside, that would be a fun shoot to organize. Eat a dinner course, and go shoot a gun.

Have to save the wine till the weapons have been secured for the night, but that's a brilliant idea.

 dogma wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Edit: On a side note from this, one of the more interesting things I've been informed about my hobby/sport/job/etc is that shooting firearms isn't fun. I don't speak for every gun owner but I can't think of any part of shooting sports that isn't fun. Sure you have to maintain safety, and there's the serious mental aspects to accommodate, but beyond miserable weather there's never been a time out in the field hunting or on the range plinking where I haven't been having fun.

I've heard that about playing contact sports. The usual refrain is "Doesn't it hurt?" Yeah it does, but its worth it when you feel the satisfaction of putting a blocker on his ass while chasing a kickoff, or hip-checking someone at center ice, or spearing the ball carrier after you came down across the rugby pitch, etc. Hell, shooting even has the advantage of not completely ruining your body.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Have to save the wine till the weapons have been secured for the night, but that's a brilliant idea.

Clearly, but that might make it even better. A bit of wine to enhance the banter over who had the better outing. Sort of like how, in college, we would compare football stats over lots and lots of alcohol.

 dogma wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Have to save the wine till the weapons have been secured for the night, but that's a brilliant idea.

Clearly, but that might make it even better. A bit of wine to enhance the banter over who had the better outing. Sort of like how, in college, we would compare football stats over lots and lots of alcohol.

I am now actively planning out how that would work.

For

.22 Caliber pistol/rifle and finger food to wet the appetite

Trap shooting followed by salad and bread

A nice robust rifle caliber weapon before the main course

and a relaxing large caliber hand gun with dessert

followed by after dinner cocktails and weapons cleaning.

I feel like, if I lived in a more gun-friendly state, I may have given up a great event concept.

 dogma wrote:
I feel like, if I lived in a more gun-friendly state, I may have given up a great event concept.

I think I'm going to propose it to the local country club grade shooting club for a charity event.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:


I am now actively planning out how that would work.

For

.22 Caliber pistol/rifle and finger food to wet the appetite

Trap shooting followed by salad and bread

A nice robust rifle caliber weapon before the main course

and a relaxing large caliber hand gun with dessert

followed by after dinner cocktails and weapons cleaning.

Weirdly enough I went to this event in NY. Barrett 82A1 was the main course rifle, though the trap shooting was swapped with detonating a few pounds of high ex.

Went to a birthday party once where the desert course was served to the accompaniment of mortar fire to celebrate.

Three tubes popped 27 rounds to spell out his initials on a hillside.

That's some precision mortar fire.

But if the leader of North Korea gets his dinner served like this people call him crazy...

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
That's some precision mortar fire.

Once upon a time, I was always happy Tom and his merry band of madmen could do tricks like that. I remember one time one of them, Ted was his name, was hung over, 1st call came at 03:00, we get lined up, and there's this loud BANG from the camp. He came out on the ready line looking like a cartoon, eyebrows smoking. Tom looks at him and says 'What the hell happened to you?" 'Negligent Discharge. Thought it was a cigar in the dark.'


Then again, I'm told the RDX the US Marines get has to have 'Not Food' written on it.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
But if the leader of North Korea gets his dinner served like this people call him crazy...

That's because he's a madman the US doesn't like. When they like them, they're 'eccentric'.


Edit: I think I'll add this here: Connecticut was the scene of America's first mass murder, and, I might point out, the killer did not require a gun at all. Barnett Davenport beat the adults of the Mallory family (grandparents, in laws, etc) to death, before burning their children alive.

This was 1780.

All I really have to say is that madmen don't need guns to butcher large numbers of people rapidly and in a horrific manner. But they help.

 d-usa wrote:
But if the leader of North Korea gets his dinner served like this people call him crazy...

Maybe it's because he has people executed with mortars...

This guy was just shooting at a hillside, not people. *they need an eye rolling ork*

Speaking of crazy, I'll assuming everyone heard about the LAPD's gun buy back program netting them rocket launchers right?

That's insane. I bet those are high-capacity rocket launchers too! They need to arm the LAPD with guns so they can be safe from these arsenals! Or at least give them heavy-duty rocket launcher-proof body armor like the military-style criminals have. Maybe they could get extra funding to have armed security guards at these gun buyback events to make sure people don't have semi-automatic mega-clips?

I have a solution.

Needs moar guns.

 Hordini wrote:
That's insane. I bet those are high-capacity rocket launchers too! They need to arm the LAPD with guns so they can be safe from these arsenals! Or at least give them heavy-duty rocket launcher-proof body armor like the military-style criminals have. Maybe they could get extra funding to have armed security guards at these gun buyback events to make sure people don't have semi-automatic mega-clips?

I think they have it covered:

Everyone needs what this guy has...

Helo mounted M240s?

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Helo mounted M240s?

Yeah... ain't those difficult to manhandle?

Are those the guns that can be dismounted and used if the choppa goes down?

 Hordini wrote:
That's insane. I bet those are high-capacity rocket launchers too! They need to arm the LAPD with guns so they can be safe from these arsenals! Or at least give them heavy-duty rocket launcher-proof body armor like the military-style criminals have. Maybe they could get extra funding to have armed security guards at these gun buyback events to make sure people don't have semi-automatic mega-clips?

The police are one step ahead of you, they have invested in METAL BAWKSES! (several Chapters shown)








But don't worry, the criminals are already building Battle Wagons to deal with them:






Not so far fetched now, is it?