HBecwithFn7
-
Content Count
2,659 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Feedback
0%
Posts posted by HBecwithFn7
-
-
A very small pond in the middle of what looks like a small town:
http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/04/illinois-firefighters-stand-idle-while-man-drowns/ He was so close to shore they could have thrown him a rope and pulled him out.
So the "pond" was frozen or semi-frozen at the time? Yeah, that could have been a true "Charlie-Foxtrot" if some of the first responders also got trapped below the ice attempting a rescue for which they weren't properly trained/equipped. Ice is considered an "overhead" environment, as are caves, in the diving world... requires special training. And, if the rescuers aren't properly geared up (specialized dry suits, etc.), they could also get hypothermic within minutes.
I realize it seems totally unfair to the one "already suffering" victim. But the objective of these policies is to prevent the rescuers from becoming victims as well. That can easily happen if the responders are not geared up or trained to do that kind of rescue. Yes, they could have thrown the victim a rope, but if the victim got towed under or pushed under by heavy ice (and if there were currents), s/he could have pulled whoever was on the other end of that rope into the pond with them. And what if the rope were caught on something or snapped?
The last thing that is needed at any disaster scene is rescuers being injured or killed, because it distracts the other rescuers that are still "rescuing." That is why an injured rescuer has the very top "triage" priority when it comes to being transported away from the scene and to the hospital, even if another victim has more serious injuries and has greater need for transport.
Does it make sense? Sometimes, absolutely not. But it is why they do it that way.
-
It's all becoming very clear. Good Samaritans, armed or unarmed, will step forward regardless. The policy limits or eliminates liability. Sometimes the company gives a "wink-wink, nod-nod."
But can you imagine the whopper of a lawsuit following the hypothetical incident I posted a few minutes ago? "Associates opened potato chip bags and dip containers, and pulled up cheap Chinese lawn chairs to watch our daughter/mother get beaten to death."
Hmmm. I wonder if Wal-Mart's employee policy indemnifies the associate, should they become "co-defendants" in that whopper of a lawsuit. Maybe that's why they have to "get to safety..." so they aren't seen on cameras actually opening those chips and sitting on the lounge chairs.
OTOH these things actually happen in real life. Remember the story from a few years ago of the cops who refused to rescue someone who was drowning? Were they moonlighting for WalMart?
Again, "minimizing" victims. Underwater rescue (especially cave rescue) requires special training. In Fl. there is a volunteer org. called IUCRR - International Underwater Cave Rescue and Recovery. They are called in to do the rescues for Law Enforcement in this area. If a "first responder" LEO who was not a trained recovery cave diver did this, they'd become the 2nd victim, putting the IUCRR crew at even greater risk, since they now have to recover two bodies. And, besides, I don't think the average LEO would carry the diving gear needed to do it.
Or was this a drowning in a bathtub, or something?
-
This is even sadder than no-gun policies. Our fists and bodies have become illegal weapons. Why isn't this bad for business? If I were a 98-lb weakling I'd steer clear of WalMart.
Imagine it's early on a Sunday, and almost nobody is in the store. A guy starts beating and raping a woman right in the main aisle. Let's turn up the irony a bit: The woman is an employee. Nay, the manager!
All her coworkers follow policy and stand by, watching, until she's dead.
Well, I'd assume "policy" would be to call "security" or "911" and then get to safety, lest you become a victim as well. For a retailer as large as Wal-Mart, I'd think they'd have internal security, anyway, watching through multiple cameras, etc. to call 911 or send their own people. Heck, my supermarket has that (unarmed, though). As for the employees, I guess the policy logic being, "while one victim is unacceptable, 'many more' victims is even more unacceptable." Unfortunate for the "targeted" victim, but maybe they figure that since s/he is already "targeted"...
Again, would they rather be sued by one victim's family or by *several* victims' families? -
Wait a minute. This guy was unarmed. Exactly which Walmart policy did he violate? Preventing a defenseless woman from getting raped?
It would seem that "engaging the perp" in any form (armed/unarmed, etc.) is a violation of Wal-Mart policy. Anything which causes tension and (potentially) further violence to escalate, I guess. I think the policy forgot the "I need get rid of all witnesses," scenario.
-
I think you (HBek and Duppie) are correct. I'm sure some aggregation of attorneys, accountants, and insurance pros have worked this out to the nearest dollar. They probably are insured for a worker or customer getting killed or injured on their premises. There's one rate for allowing concealed carry, and a lower one for a no-gun policy.
One would assume this actuarial construct would be based on fact, however.
Again, what do you hear and read in the (mostly anti-gun) news? What I see is armed clerks coming out on top. CBS/NBC/CNN would cream in their pants if they could report on "A self-defense incident at a Manhattan bodega went terribly wrong last night..." You know, multiple bystander fatalities, clerk shoots himself, "AND THE THIEF WAS NOT EVEN ARMED." But it rarely happens that way.
BTW, I'm reminded of two recent incidents. The Empire State Building shooting where the cops wounded numerous bystanders but missed the perps, and the bodega robbery where the workers escaped but -- just when he thought he'd dodged a bullet -- the cops shot/killed one of them thinking he was the bad guy.
Update: Just caught a web article last night which says that a Wal-Mart associate that defended a woman but was fired for violating "policy" has been offered his job back See article from the Missoulian. No word as to whether or not the associate will accept the re-offer.
-
And, thus, my dilema in the FID bureaucracy process. Will I fail the process, NICS checks, etc. due to this discrepency? For the record, I have no criminal or pyschological history, whatsoever. All my documents, credit history, tax returns, voter registration, employment history, etc. are listed as "J Quenton Public, Jr." I see that I can fill out the sts-033 and sp-066 (even the SBI_212A) as "J Quenton Public, Jr" and that is what I want on the FID card. And I'm more than willing to explain all of this to my chief. Oh, one other thing. For "security/spam reduction" reasons, all mail goes to a PO box that is not in the same town as where I live. Even the NJ Drivers license goes to that PO Box, although I'm certain the DMV has both PO Box and street addresses on file. Only my voter registration has my street address actually printed.
Update: I went to the NJ DMV website, this evening, to do some research, and within 30 seconds, I was able to register a change of address back to my street address on file, free of charge. I expect to receive stickers to affix on the DL for the change within 14 days. I just have to make sure I'm not stopped in between now and the time I get home from Florida.
And since I need to renew the license in another two months anyway (regular 4 year renewal), it won't matter much.So that problem solved, I'll have to see if they will add my full middle name. If yes, then I can fill out the sts-033 and other docs with confidence that they won't cause any "discrepancies."
2nd Update: I think I have my answer, already. I went to the "Contact Us:" form on the NJ DMV website and, sure enough, it requires entry of your name.... "First Name, Middle Initial and Last Name"
Oddly enough... it does *not* require Social Security #.
-
While nj2as is dealing with it everyone in little egg harbor should just keep applying for 1 permit every 30 days even if you don't need them. Eventually they will get sick of seeing everyone's faces and dealing with everyone constantly. " oh hi detective Smith, sorry to bother you get again.... Golly, it sure sucks that your dept isnt allowing 3 or 6 permits at a time because then you would only have to deal with this occasionally. See you in a few weeks detective, I feel bad that you have to do all this redundant paperwork but the rules are the rules"
Luckily I am home from work at 130 pm and the PD is 3.blocks from my house so I have plenty of time to do something like that. I've called and stopped in my PD so many times they might be obligated to hire me.
Is it "practical," though, to request more than three at a time per sts-033, considering OGAM, and the permits being valid only for 90 days from the date of issue? Or am I wrong about the 90 day limit?
-
Yes. A quick google search will give you a bunch of articles on it. It doesn't get much more public then her saying it in testimony/speech on the floor of congress.
Yup, that it did (Googling).
Apparently, she obtained it *after* the Moscone/Milk incident, and after the Pres. Reagan/Brady incident. It's starting to seem like she made an "executive exception" for herself... And yes, having become a US Senator, she no longer needed it. Seems a tad hypocritical to me... -
Nouria Energy appears to be a local, small-time outfit.
Question: Does every company of significance have a firearms policy?
There is a decent chance that the crack head would have stabbed the cashier after cleaning out the drawer. Or before.
As for guns causing "shootouts": Maybe I read the wrong news sites, but I can't remember the last time I heard of a situation like the one in Nashua going wrong. Examples, anyone? In other words, there a "shootout" ensued and the good guy died. On the other hand, I have heard of thousands of cases where an unarmed victim was maimed or killed.
Most of the shootouts I've read about involve the police. Hmmm...maybe we should disarm them and have the zombies take over.
I think the store/company might be considering a "nightmare scenario," where the clerk pulls the gun in their own self-defense, but the perp (if there are bystanders in the store) takes a "hostage" at gunpoint. Not that the perp might take hostages without the clerk pulling their weapon, but more likely to happen if the robber feels "more threatened" than they already do. I can see a point to that policy if other customers/bystanders are in the store. But if it's just the clerk and the perp, I think the clerk should be able to defend themselves. And I also think that's a reasonable, "teachable," exception to the policy (i.e. being "alone" vs. being with others in the store).
Still, did the company do their "due diligence" to keep the clerk protected? Should there also be a policy of being behind "protective glass" during the night hours? Should there be other employes present at those hours (i.e. "No Lone Zone")? Should they be hidden from view but monitoring the security cameras and stand ready to call 911?
BTW, I do recall a story where a "restaurant" night asst. magager was jacked and chose to resist the perp, and was fired the next day. A very similar scenario, and dismissal for the same reason.
-
I think there may be more to Sen. Feinstein than meets the eye. Recall that she was the San Francisco "President of the Bd. of Supervisors" and had to go before the S.F. media one evening and tell them (and the world) that its mayor (George Moscone) and a fellow supervisor (Harvey Milk) had just been assassinated by a former supervisor (Dan White). I watched that press conference live (it was the first time I'd ever seen her), and repeated endlessly (at the time) by the MSM, as events like Newtown and Aurora were. The reaction from the press was enough to "shell shock" the strongest of people.
I think there might be some direct "personal motivation" to her anti-gun agenda.
Was that before or after she got her concealed carry permit?
The incident occurred on 11/27/1978. I'm not sure if/when Sen. Feinstein received a CCW.
Is that "public record" somewhere?
-
See: http://cut.gd/mqv1
Convenience store clerk, on the job for 10 years, gets held up at knifepoint in Nashua, NH (close to Massachusetts). The clerk pulls his gun, the creep walks out of the store. Nobody is injured.
The clerk had a carry permit, and the gun was legal.
Still, the next day, instead of receiving a bonus the clerk gets fired. I believe his employer was a Shell company.
I guess the company thinks that the liability risk of being sued by the robber (or survivors/bystanders) for being shot by the clerk is greater than that of being sued by the clerk (or survivors) if s/he is shot or injured by the robber. The problem with policies like this is that, sometimes, the "cash in the register" just ain't enough. If the robber is of a mind to "not leave witnesses," the clerk is doomed, no matter what they do. The clerk should have every right to defend themselves if directly threatened. Of course, the robber should realize that there are security cameras monitoring the facility. Perhaps, the company should post signs indicating this in plain view of the entries.
I don't know if the clerk/employee signed any "indemnification" agreements with the company (in the event of this kind of scenario), but if I were his/her lawyer (or one looking to start a class action), I'd be looking at "inadequacy of protection" issues (i.e. why no "bullet proof glass" to protect him... why no extra personnel on at night... Why wasn't the camera footage fed live to a security firm who might have called 911... etc. etc. etc.)? Yeah, I know these things cost money... but it could have cost an (now former) employee his/her life.
-
They are available. All you need is alot of $ and alot of patience.
Well, one outta two ain't bad.
I don't have the $, but I do have the patience. -
Reality is once they're done with NJ they are going to try it nationally. Where do you think Diane Feinstein gets her wacky ideas from?
I think there may be more to Sen. Feinstein than meets the eye. Recall that she was the San Francisco "President of the Bd. of Supervisors" and had to go before the S.F. media one evening and tell them (and the world) that its mayor (George Moscone) and a fellow supervisor (Harvey Milk) had just been assassinated by a former supervisor (Dan White). I watched that press conference live (it was the first time I'd ever seen her), and repeated endlessly (at the time) by the MSM, as events like Newtown and Aurora were. The reaction from the press was enough to "shell shock" the strongest of people.
I think there might be some direct "personal motivation" to her anti-gun agenda.
-
Not for right now (there's no way I'm qualified for it), but I was curious as to whether or not the Tac Ops Bravo-51 competition sniper rifle is manufactured anymore and/or still available for purchase? How common are they at this point? I've seen Tango-51's on the exchanges in the $3.5K range... A tad pricey for me right now, but maybe later.
Thanks.
-
If you re only renting and dont own guns (waiting on FID or living with Anti s maybe??) then talk to them if they change the policy.
Or bring friends with you that have guns. But its their range and they re the bosses bottom line.
I am sure that thy ll do everything to protect themselves from liability.
Thanks much! PM sent. I will no longer participate publicly in this thread, lest I bring any further shame upon us for expressing how this tragedy "affects me."
Seriously???
-
You gotta understand, they'r handing a firearm to someone they know nothing about. That person could be suicidal, homicidal or just a dangerous idiot.
...
The point is, renting guns to the public at large presents an inherent risk. I'm all for ranges taking measures to minimize that risk.
I absolutely understand. But they knew me well enough to take a bunch of my money on an annual membership. And to not be able to use that membership, now, based on a rule change after the fact is a bit of an issue.
That aside, I'd also ask how does the range expect to encourage new people to use it and to grow, if these kinds of policies exist. Is the "inherent risk" that much greater than the potential reward?
-
Those rules are there to discourage suicidal people from coming there just to off themselves.
If they have there own gun, wouldn't need a rental.
If they bring a buddy, also less likely to try to kill themselves
Well, I'm not sure what I can do to ensure them that I'm not "suicidal." So, maybe they might not rent to me in the future.
We'll cross that bridge when we get to it.
-
Then you will only be shooting in Jersey very soon. Because the rules at whatever two PA ranges you found will change very soon.
What makes you say that?
-
A lone renter without his own weapon that is intent on shooting himself will not worry about leaving his drivers license.
True, but I'm not sure that's the root intent of the DL security requirement. I think it's more to ensure that the weapon remains on the range and that it's not "ripped off."
To be honest, the logic of requiring of a lone shooter to own a weapon before rental escapes me. If it's a matter of training, they can require a range orientation class or other training, etc. Anyway, hopefully, it won't be an issue for me for very long.
-
You will find most ranges in PA require you to bring a gun to rent one, or to rent a lane with somebody that accompanies you. Heritage sounds like a very rare exception.
I guess if you have one gun, you never need to try another gun. But for some strange reason they still make a whole lot of money renting guns to people that own guns.
The two PA ranges with which I have familiarity (and membership) do not have this requirement. Otherwise, they probably would not get very much money from me.
Of course, it's "their range, their rules," but I'd consider it bad marketing on their part to not allow rentals to people who don't own. They might very well make that first "buy" from the range, when able... and other buys. When they rent, they take my Driver's License as "security." That's a pretty good incentive (among others) to be a good rental customer and do things right, regardless of what I own/don't own. -
Did you bring your own gun? That was part of my quote, and neither of you answered that part. It's a two-part rule common at ranges. You have to satisfy one or the other.
No, I was renting. If I had my own guns, I wouldn't need to rent...
-
I was solo today and rented a LC9, but I am also a member so, not sure about if they have a rule for non members
BTW the LC9 stock trigger blows monkey nuts
My first time there I was a "non-member" and rented. The 2nd time, I started the membership on the spot and rented.
That may change, though, now.
-
I assume they have the "bring your own gun or we only rent to a party of two" rule?
No such rule, as of two weeks ago. I've gone by myself and rented. After this, I'm not sure, but I hope not. I just purchased a 1 year membership with them.
-
Already, having been in Fl 3 days, and having talked to old diving friends and at my favorite range, down here, I've had several people tell me "move down, here ASAP!!!" They can't believe the bureaucracy NJ requires to own firearms, especially hand guns.
It can't/won't happen in the near future, and probably not until well after I'd already completed that NJ bureaucracy and acquired my FID card and P2Ps (and the inventory itself.
). But what happens to all those NJ docs if, once acquired, I do choose to move out of state, permanently? Am I obliged by law to file "change of addresses" or simply surrender the docs to the local chief? Do I need to file for "cancellation" of the docs?PK90...any insights?
Thanks.
Electronic nics requiring social security #
in Current New Jersey Gun Laws Discussion
Posted
If you supply SSN on the sts-033 (solely to clarify your identity), does it appear on the FID automatically, or can you request it not be displayed?
Also, who actually produces/prints the document itself? The local LE agency, or the NJSP Firearms unit?
I don't mind supplying it to the municipality/state (they know it anyway), but would not want it on the docs (that may be shown to many others).