Arcane NJ law prevents retired cops from carrying concealed weapon

[Arthur Kill 0]

Arthur, my friend.

Do you have any data to back up your statement" most drunk drivers make it home"

 

And as this relates to ccw, do you have any data of liscense carries accidental death rates vs that of drunk drivers.

 

These are your statements and the pretense of your current agurement. The burden of proof is on you.

It actually is not -- I've entered the assertion, now it's your job to dispute it with credible data.

 

My assertions are reasonable and rational -- kinda like if I said, -- "most people sleep at night" -- and thereby don't require scientific data for substantiation in order for acceptance by reasonable and rational people, who aren't challenging them for agenda driven purposes.

 

If you feel the need to dispute them, then by all means, post the data that says they're wrong.

 

Additionally, rational people realize that large numbers of causalities aren't required to regulate an activity if it recklessly or carelessly kills ONE human being. 

 

Case in point:

 

Armed "good Samaritan" tries to stop carjacking, accidentally shoots victim in head

by Stefan Sirucek

 

A carjacking in Houston, Texas, turned bloody when an armed good Samaritan opened fire on the car thieves but hit the carjacking victim instead, reported Raw Story:

 

As the men struggled with the car-owner, a passerby produced a gun and fired multiple shots, missing the thieves but striking the victim in the head.

 

Apparently the not-so-heroic shooter was well aware of what he’d done as he “quickly gathered up his shell casings from the pavement” and then fled the scene of the crime that was made immeasurably worse through his involvement.

 

So, while ostensibly trying to help, all the man succeeded in doing was going from innocent bystander to wanted man in record time and sending an innocent man to the hospital. Luckily for everyone involved the victim of the carjacking turned shooting victim is reportedly in “stable condition.”

 

You can see how this sort of thing can easily happen when an untrained civilian with a gun witnesses a crime and gets involved, barrels a’blazing. It’s an important reminder that the nutty claims that emerge after every shooting, claiming that the solution to gun crime is more guns, are a crock.

 

The chorus usually goes something like: “If only more people in that movie theater had had guns, lives would have been saved!” …Or more would have died in a chaotic shootout. It could really go either way. Everybody wants to be a hero but introducing more bullets to a situation rarely improves matters.

 

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/264755/carjacking-gone-wrong-houston-texas/

[Arthur Kill 0]

But it's fun. Don't like it. Stay out of this thread.

 

I highly doubt AK has any type of LE affiliation due to statements that he has made. IMHO, most police have very little training with firearms. The academy and bi-annual qualifications is just that, QUALIFICATIONS. That is not training. As a NJ Police Training Commission Certified Firearms Instructor, I would rather rely on most of the posters in this thread than most of the LEOs that I have seen at the range.

 

Probably one of the most ignorant statements I've read on this board -- and there are a LOT to choose from. 

 

Congrats.

 

BTW, you're completely FOS.

 

[Zeke 5,504]

 

 

Additionally, rational people realize that large numbers of causalities aren't required to regulate an activity if it recklessly or carelessly kills ONE human being.

 

 

You mean like this officer

 

http://reut.rs/1E0yDZ6

[Zeke 5,504]

Btw, agurements are based on facts. Assertions are based on emotion. Logical people understand that.

[Arthur Kill 0]

You mean like this officer

 

http://reut.rs/1E0yDZ6

 

So, you can't find a valid contradiction to my assertions.  Got it.

 

Should I also assume that you advocate disbanding America's police departments? 

 

Or are you simply offering more proof that guns on the street are dangerous, even in the hands of state trained professional police officers, and allowing untrained hobbyists to carry them heightens that danger dramatically and puts the general public unnecessarily at risk?

 

Thanks.

 

[Zeke 5,504]

Lol, you keep saying you are the only one qualified.

 

Btw you and I know how this works. You feel strongly that most drunk drivers make it home ok, prove it.

[tattooo 220]

AK still has yet to shed light on his his profession & why he more qualified ?

[Zeke 5,504]

All the training in the world will not prevent a mistake.

All the laws in the world will not prevent crime.

 

We have that already

[Zeke 5,504]

AK still has yet to shed light on his his profession & why he more qualified ?

Has he/she ever said they were LE? Or is that the rumor/consensus?

[SmittyMHS 603]

Gotta take him at his word.

What does a man have but his word?

 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[tattooo 220]

Has he/she ever said they were LE? Or is that the rumor/consensus?

He hasn't said that I've seen....just the consensus by the statements he makes

[Arthur Kill 0]

Lol, you keep saying you are the only one qualified.

 

Btw you and I know how this works. You feel strongly that most drunk drivers make it home ok, prove it.

Link to where I claimed to be "the only one qualified?"

 

I don't dispute the assertion that "most drunk driver's make it home okay" because it appears to me to be truthful, rational and reasonable and from my life experience, is believable.  I'd use the same qualifiers not to question the statement, "most people sleep at night."

 

But that's only a diversion and not really the issue here, is it?

 

I don't think you, or anyone else here for that matter, really in their heart, disagrees with my suggestion that comprehensive training should be associated with firearms possession -- I think more accurately, you want your hobby (because for many, it's not just a hobby but an identity for an otherwise, self-proceived insignificant existence) but you haven't been trained -- and you don't want to start now.  Nobody does.

 

The diversions, the name-calling, the insults and general vitriol directed at me here for daring to suggest firearms training -- is nothing short of remarkable -- and this from people who assume they deserve the right to carry deadly weapons because they constantly claim to live to a higher, law-abiding standard.  Reality tells a different story here in this forum, doesn't it?

 

And this living/breathing contradiction in terms -- and this general brand of ignorant inflexibility on behalf of those self-proclaimed "gun-rights activists" as a whole, as marching orders directed from the NRA, is much the reason, IMO, that nonsensical gun laws, like the AWB, have been enacted in recent times.

 

My suggestion for more practical training and use-of-force training is not foreign concept -- it's not even unreasonable.  Even an article, posted here on this site, written by an attorney who specializes in defending CCW carriers when they get jammed up, advises:

 

"...you would be well served to study the law, and to think about its application before carrying, or even owning, a firearm.

 

This article is no substitute for studying the law regarding firearms and self-defense.  Reading this article will not teach you everything you need to know about carrying or using a firearm; far from it.  I recommend that all gun owners take an initial comprehensive gun safety class as well as a refresher class on a regular basis from a qualified instructor.  Carrying a firearm is a huge responsibility.  

 

There is no room for error.  I have seen many lives changed forever based on an erroneous split second decision or an honest mistake."

 

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/02/marc-j-victor/carry-gun-america/

 

The author; Marc J. Victor is an Arizona State bar certified specialist in criminal law who has been zealously representing clients in serious state and federal criminal law matters for well over twenty years. As a long time freedom activist, Mr. Victor is regularly invited to speak to audiences across Arizona on a variety of issues including ending the drug war, the rights of gun owners, the free market, criminal justice issues as well as a variety of other criminal law related issues.

 

[JackDaWack 2,895]

Haha!

 

Okay, I'll bite.

 

Post the names and phone number's of the "SWAT officer" and the "federal agent."

 

(swat officer)

I think you missed the aspect to his statement about not having any factual evidence to support and validate your opinion to start with. We are a rather objectional group of people here, we don't discuss small ideas and assumptions. If you can't articulate your message with a source of credibility, no one is going to care what you say, or they will continue to rip into everything you post.

 

Now I know your not a cop... I'm not sure in what world statements are disproved in ordered to make them viable.

 

God exists, now its your job to prove he doest? What kinda backwards ass thinking is that.

 

He's guilty, prove me wrong.

 

We don't disprove subjective statements with objectional ones. We support subjected statements with objectional facts...

 

The fact is, as a police officer... Your job would entail providing supporting evidence for your legal statements. The fact that aspect of your job doesnt alter your attitude to fact based discussions tells me something about you.

 

Do you tell the judge that a guy was drunk and he was absolutely drunk because he didn't prove to you he wasnt drunk?

[Arthur Kill 0]

I think you missed the aspect to his statement about not having any factual evidence to support and validate your opinion to start with. We are a rather objectional group of people here, we don't discuss small ideas and assumptions. If you can't articulate your message with a source of credibility, no one is going to care what you say, or they will continue to rip into everything you post.

 

Now I know your not a cop... I'm not sure in what world statements are disproved in ordered to make them viable.

 

God exists, now its your job to prove he doest? What kinda backwards ass thinking is that.

 

He's guilty, prove me wrong.

 

We don't disprove subjective statements with objectional ones. We support subjected statements with objectional facts...

 

I've supplied facts and links when necessary.  I don't feel the need to backup the mundane claim that "most drunk drivers make it to their destination without killing someone"  I explained this 2 posts up ^^^ a few minutes ago.  This is a diversion and nothing else.

 

And I disagree that you "don't discuss small ideas and assumptions."  I have seen nothing BUT that discussed here.  The one constant being the criticizing of others that don't "follow the constitution." 

 

THAT my friend, is about the smallest assumption one can make and shows a fundamental lack of both understanding and study in constitutional review.

 

Thanks.

[Zeke 5,504]

Link to where I claimed to be "the only one qualified?"

 

I don't dispute the assertion that "most drunk driver's make it home okay" because it appears to me to be truthful, rational and reasonable and from my life experience, is believable. I'd use the same qualifiers not to question the statement, "most people sleep at night."

 

But that's only a diversion and not really the issue here, is it?

 

I don't think you, or anyone else here for that matter, really in their heart, disagrees with my suggestion that comprehensive training should be associated with firearms possession -- I think more accurately, you want your hobby (because for many, it's not just a hobby but an identity for an otherwise, self-proceived insignificant existence) but you haven't been trained -- and you don't want to start now. Nobody does.

 

The diversions, the name-calling, the insults and general vitriol directed at me here for daring to suggest firearms training -- is nothing short of remarkable -- and this from people who assume they deserve the right to carry deadly weapons because they constantly claim to live to a higher, law-abiding standard. Reality tells a different story here in this forum, doesn't it?

 

And this living/breathing contradiction in terms -- and this general brand of ignorant inflexibility on behalf of those self-proclaimed "gun-rights activists" as a whole, as marching orders directed from the NRA, is much the reason, IMO, that nonsensical gun laws, like the AWB, have been enacted in recent times.

 

My suggestion for more practical training and use-of-force training is not foreign concept -- it's not even unreasonable. Even an article, posted here on this site, written by an attorney who specializes in defending CCW carriers when they get jammed up, advises:

 

"...you would be well served to study the law, and to think about its application before carrying, or even owning, a firearm.

 

This article is no substitute for studying the law regarding firearms and self-defense. Reading this article will not teach you everything you need to know about carrying or using a firearm; far from it. I recommend that all gun owners take an initial comprehensive gun safety class as well as a refresher class on a regular basis from a qualified instructor. Carrying a firearm is a huge responsibility.

 

There is no room for error. I have seen many lives changed forever based on an erroneous split second decision or an honest mistake."

 

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/02/marc-j-victor/carry-gun-america/

 

The author; Marc J. Victor is an Arizona State bar certified specialist in criminal law who has been zealously representing clients in serious state and federal criminal law matters for well over twenty years. As a long time freedom activist, Mr. Victor is regularly invited to speak to audiences across Arizona on a variety of issues including ending the drug war, the rights of gun owners, the free market, criminal justice issues as well as a variety of other criminal law related issues.

 

Somthing about 100 guns and more qualified.

Btw, that post is way to long. I didn't read it.

If you want to change the hearts and minds here, try to get to you points faster. I'm here for you bud. Jus trying to help

[JackDaWack 2,895]

No one cares about drunk driving in a topic about CCW of the average person. To which you made statements about police training and public safety. However, you provided zero data to support any of your statements about average Joe carrying and public safety. Real discussions take place around analyzing data. Like I said, these threads with you have a very low level of discussion because instead of offering evidence, you try and make comparisons. You can't corellate driving drunk with CCW, the fact your trying to tells me alot about the way you reason.

[Zeke 5,504]

I always take the essay response as a sign of respect. " wow, you did all that for me?"

But, I never read it.

Lol.

I'll get bored of this eventually, it's a nice distraction today

[Arthur Kill 0]

No one's cares about drunk driving in a topic about CCW of the average person. To which you made statement about police training and public safety. However, you provided zero data to support any of your statements about average Joe carrying and public safety.

 

You're not following along.  Already asked and answered, your honor.  Insert any topic you like instead of drunk driving, it doesn't matter. 

 

We're talking about threats to public safety, any threat -- choose one you like.

 

[Zeke 5,504]

 

 

Or it's Mipa's wife

[JackDaWack 2,895]

You're not following along. Already asked and answered, your honor. Insert any topic you like instead of drunk driving, it doesn't matter.

 

We're talking about threats to public safety, any threat -- choose one you like.

 

So you have offered evidence to support that trained officers are less of a public threat than CCW holders? Please point me to that. Not your statements or someone else's statements. Hard empirical data.

[Zeke 5,504]

Arthur, is it possible you could be a threat to public safety?

[Arthur Kill 0]

I always take the essay response as a sign of respect. " wow, you did all that for me?"

But, I never read it.

Lol.

I'll get bored of this eventually, it's a nice distraction today

 

I'm not surprised.  Most people refuse to read/educate themselves.  That's why we have such a misinformed electorate -  for proof of that, we currently have a reality-TV star as the front-running candidate for the R nomination for president.

 

What's next?  Kim Kardasian as Treasury Secretary?

 

[Shane45 807]

Probably one of the most ignorant statements I've read on this board -- and there are a LOT to choose from. 

 

Congrats.

 

BTW, you're completely FOS.

 

Sorry AK, but knowing PK90 personally, I can vouch for his credibility. That continues to leave you as the question mark, a BIG ONE. Your citing of single instances is absurd. I can find an example of just about anything out there. How about this, I need the right to defend myself because things happen in NJ like Officer Lutes running around with a full auto MP5 committing mass murder (In the town I worked in and the town I lived right next to). Obviously this is an isolated incident. But you seem unable to distinguish between the two.

 

http://murderpedia.org/male.L/l/lutes-edward.htm

 

Ill tell you what Arthur, Ill make it easy for you. Lets attend an IDPA match. If you do better than me, I will concede defeat in our debate. If I win, you admit defeat. But be advised I took 1st place in CDP the last two matches I shot. Must be from all that police training I never had. But hey its been a long while and Im pretty rusty. And before you jump to some snarky comment about what the class of other competitors were, be advised that one of the other competitors is a lead trainer for the US Air Marshals and the other a former trainer at Blackwater.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

I'm not surprised. Most people refuse read/educate themselves. That's why we have such a misinformed electorate - for proof of that, we currently have a reality-TV star as the front-running candidate for the R nomination for president.

 

What's next? Kim Kardasian as Treasury Secretary?

 

 

Nonsense. I hate donald trump, but to call him a reality TV star as his title is a pretty far fetched liberal excuse to discount him. Like all you can think of is his TV appearances? That's all the guy has accomplished in his life?

[Zeke 5,504]

I'm not surprised. Most people refuse read/educate themselves. That's why we have such a misinformed electorate - for proof of that, we currently have a reality-TV star as the front-running candidate for the R nomination for president.

 

What's next? Kim Kardasian as Treasury Secretary?

 

It's America, anything is possible!

[Zeke 5,504]

This is very good day. Njgunforum has the original mall ninja.

I'm felling it, you feeling it?

[tattooo 220]

This guy is so out there he makes Sweeney sound logical......[emoji23]

[Shane45 807]

I've supplied facts and links when necessary.  I don't feel the need to backup the mundane claim that "most drunk drivers make it to their destination without killing someone"  I explained this 2 posts up ^^^ a few minutes ago.  This is a diversion and nothing else.

 

And I disagree that you "don't discuss small ideas and assumptions."  I have seen nothing BUT that discussed here.  The one constant being the criticizing of others that don't "follow the constitution." 

 

THAT my friend, is about the smallest assumption one can make and shows a fundamental lack of both understanding and study in constitutional review.

 

Thanks.

 

I got an A- in constitutional law and rules of evidence, what did you get?

[Zeke 5,504]

Could a guy like this actually pass a psych eval? Woah, that's a disturbing thought

[JackDaWack 2,895]

Do you want an example?

 

According to the violence policy center. Since 2007, only 21 people were unintentionally killed by CCW holders.

 

I'm still looking for the number of accidental killing by police.

 

However, by any standard is 21 deaths in 8 years what you call a threat to public safety?

 

Apparently people think cops are just as much a threat that they even creating a website for

us.https://the7thpwr.wordpress.com/accidental-police-shootings/

 

 

FYI, the topic of the thread is CCW and the public, keep it on topic and relavant.