OT: Gabe Kapler
- Thread starter Knightmoves
- Start date
- Status
This is a Rutgers Football forum K-Burnt.
Pony up for Premium if you are so inclined to discuss CE topics.
Well I am asking because I don't believe NJ's laws are unfair.
Here is an article on the NJ carry laws. Looks like a small number are outright denied.
Lmao how pathetic are you? Nobody posts on CE so now you’re trying to recruit people to pay to argue with you amongst like 10 other people on a bizarre RU athletics sub forum.
Twilight zone stuff
@Richard SchnyderiteLmao how pathetic are you? Nobody posts on CE so now you’re trying to recruit people to pay to argue with you amongst like 10 other people on a bizarre RU athletics sub forum.
Twilight zone stuff
Another anti-Premium poster talking CE on a Football board.
So true.Lmao how pathetic are you? Nobody posts on CE so now you’re trying to recruit people to pay to argue with you amongst like 10 other people on a bizarre RU athletics sub forum.
Twilight zone stuff
Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I think you may have misread the article. It explains what I already explained about how hard it is to obtain a carry permit in NJ.
There are some numbers cited about applications granted versus denied. But those numbers are highly misleading. In NJ, nobody applies anymore because everybody who is interested already knows full well they'll get denied. They cannot meet the requirement of showing a need to use deadly force. So they don't ever apply. Thus the high application to acceptance rate is due to the fact that people applying know they have a strong chance to meet that requirement or else they have a political in.
This sentence from the article is accurately representative of the reality in NJ: "You have to show that you need to use deadly force before you need to use deadly force," Nappen said. "So essentially, if you've just been shot and killed, you qualify for a New Jersey carry license." Nappen is being intentionally overly-dramatic to emphasize his point. But the point is still basically accurate. There are lots of dead, badly injured, or raped people from NJ who couldn't prove they might one day need deadly force until it was too late to file some paperwork about it.
Also, the use of force legislation in NJ is very much pro-attacker and anti-victim. But that's a story for another day.
To them 10 people getting killed at one time is somehow orders of magnitude worse than 1000 (or 10,000) people killed separately or 100 lives being saved.
If, by "them", you mean those who advocate for eliminating all guns, then yes, that is the implicit outcome of their desired policy. It's an emotional reaction rather than a logical calculation. And, although most probably never give it much thought, they are content being potentially helpless victims.
But there is a pretty wide spectrum of people and points of view when it comes to guns. The two extremes are the "there should be no gun laws at all " and the "there should be no guns at all" crowds. Then there's a ton of people who have more moderate views that lie in-between the two extremes.
I personally think the two extremes are totally nuts. I'm basically in the middle. I'm all for certain sensible, logical gun laws where they can protect society by preventing those who cannot be trusted with firearms from getting them. But only so long as it doesn't require law-abiding sane people to agree to be potentially helpless unarmed victims.
What I find crazy is all these people talk about supporting our country but when it was time to put up or shut up and go to war for our country they sat on the sidelines. All these politicians (Elephants and Donkeys) talking smack but would not or will not pick up a gun to protect it.
mildone said "the two extremes are totally nuts." is an accurate statement in my opinion.
I also feel both groups are a big reason why "sensible, logical gun laws" have little chance to be enacted because one side claims it goes to far and pressures Congress to vote against it , while the other side claims it's far to weak and shouldn't be supported but trashed so a stronger bill can take its place to be voted on..
>And so on and so on and scooby-dooby-dooby<
I also feel both groups are a big reason why "sensible, logical gun laws" have little chance to be enacted because one side claims it goes to far and pressures Congress to vote against it , while the other side claims it's far to weak and shouldn't be supported but trashed so a stronger bill can take its place to be voted on..
>And so on and so on and scooby-dooby-dooby<
The extremists on both sides do indeed tend to foster legislative inaction.
Although given SCOTUS current and foreseeable composition, legislative actions that exceed the stuff on my proposed list of stronger regulations (from earlier in the thread) are doomed to be rejected as unconstitutional by the court. Even some of the stuff on my list is likely to wind up challenged and rejected by the court.
And remember, it doesn't matter what our opinions are regarding the "true" meaning of the second amendment. It only matters what a majority of SCOTUS justices opinions are.
I think that is me
I don’t care who owns guns or what kind. I do care when classrooms full of children get killed. If that means consideration has to be given to how a specific gun plays a role in that and maybe we should try something because it might help alleviate the murder of children I am willing to see if it works.
There is not a person alive who cares more about how to stop children from being harmed than me. There are plenty who care just as much, but none who care more.
Caring about it is something we all agree about.
I mean, those 10 people are children whose only transgression was daring to attend school in the morning. And it continues to happen over and over again here and not in other countries.
But other than that ... what an absolute POS comment. Strong work.
I have no doubt that you care. I also understand your view on guns and stance on freedom versus security
I don’t want children to be the example of for freedom you need to give up security
For me the entire issue changes because it is children that have become the targets
Same goes for gang violence. I would do almost anything to stop gang violence
Forget freedom (for a moment). In the United States, a deterministically causal link between gun laws and children being killed in school shootings has not been established.
CA has the toughest gun laws in the nation and the highest mass shootings. WV has pretty much the fewest gun laws in the nation and the least mass shootings. NJ has the second strongest gun laws, doesn't ban semiautomatic weapons, but still has low numbers of mass shootings. TX has very lax gun laws but has higher numbers mass shootings.
Where is the causal link? Where is the correlation? The data from those four states thoroughly contradict each other insofar as mass shootings go.
You mentioned gangs. Gangs readily obtain and use fully automatic weapons. Fully automatic weapons are already banned federally in the US, as well as in most states including all four mentioned above. That gun ban clearly isn't working to stop gangs from using the banned weapons. The ban doesn't work.
I don't want to create laws and ban stuff when it doesn't work. Making senseless law that we can see (in gangs or in the four states listed) not working just diverts attention away from whatever the real causes might be.
When talking about one state vrs another, the population of states being compared needs to be taken into account.
One state might have a higher total amount than another state, but looking at each state's population puts the comparison in a better light then just the total amount beoing used
2019 firearm death rates and counts by state.
One state might have a higher total amount than another state, but looking at each state's population puts the comparison in a better light then just the total amount beoing used
2019 firearm death rates and counts by state.
| State | Abbreviation | Rate per 100,000 people | Deaths |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alaska * | AK | 24.4 | 179 |
| Mississippi * | MS | 24.2 | 710 |
| New Mexico * | NM | 22.3 | 471 |
| Wyoming * | WY | 22.3 | 133 |
| Alabama * | AL | 22.2 | 1076 |
| Louisiana * | LA | 22.1 | 1013 |
| Missouri * | MO | 20.6 | 1252 |
| South Carolina * | SC | 19.9 | 1012 |
| Arkansas * | AR | 19.3 | 580 |
| West Virginia * | WV | 16.6 | 300 |
| Georgia * | GA | 15.8 | 1695 |
| Nevada * | NV | 15.3 | 490 |
| Arizona * | AZ | 15.1 | 1136 |
| Kentucky * | KY | 14.9 | 682 |
| Colorado * | CO | 14.2 | 846 |
| Idaho * | ID | 14.2 | 255 |
| Indiana * | IN | 14.1 | 958 |
| Kansas * | KS | 13.7 | 403 |
| Ohio * | OH | 13.3 | 1578 |
| North Carolina | NC | 13.1 | 1397 |
| South Dakota * | SD | 13.1 | 113 |
| Utah * | UT | 12.8 | 394 |
| Florida * | FL | 12.7 | 2872 |
| Texas * | TX | 12.7 | 3683 |
| Maryland * | MD | 12.6 | 757 |
| Oregon * | OR | 12.6 | 566 |
| North Dakota * | ND | 12.4 | 93 |
| Michigan * | MI | 12.1 | 1220 |
| Pennsylvania * | PA | 11.7 | 1541 |
| Virginia * | VA | 11.7 | 1025 |
| Maine | ME | 11.5 | 163 |
| Illinois * | IL | 10.8 | 1367 |
| New Hampshire | NH | 10.7 | 156 |
| WA | 10.7 | 842 |
| NE | 10.4 | 205 |
| WI | 10 | 604 |
| DE | 9.9 | 93 |
| VT | 9.3 | 67 |
| IA | 9.1 | 294 |
| MN | 8.1 | 465 |
| CA | 7.2 | 2945 |
| CT | 5.3 | 190 |
| RI | 4.6 | 48 |
| HI | 4.4 | 62 |
| NJ | 4.1 | 368 |
| NY | 3.9 | 804 |
| MA | 3.4 | 247 |
Firearm deaths isn’t mass shootings. My post was about mass shootings which is what Tom was talking about, school shootings in particular. Find the stats on mass shootings (hint: they were posted earlier in this thread and in the very first post in the thread on the CE board).When talking about one state vrs another, the population of states being compared needs to be taken into account.
One state might have a higher total amount than another state, but looking at each state's population puts the comparison in a better light then just the total amount beoing used
2019 firearm death rates and counts by state.
State Abbreviation Rate per 100,000 people Deaths Alaska * AK 24.4 179 Mississippi * MS 24.2 710 New Mexico * NM 22.3 471 Wyoming * WY 22.3 133 Alabama * AL 22.2 1076 Louisiana * LA 22.1 1013 Missouri * MO 20.6 1252 South Carolina * SC 19.9 1012 Arkansas * AR 19.3 580 West Virginia * WV 16.6 300 Georgia * GA 15.8 1695 Nevada * NV 15.3 490 Arizona * AZ 15.1 1136 Kentucky * KY 14.9 682 Colorado * CO 14.2 846 Idaho * ID 14.2 255 Indiana * IN 14.1 958 Kansas * KS 13.7 403 Ohio * OH 13.3 1578 North Carolina NC 13.1 1397 South Dakota * SD 13.1 113 Utah * UT 12.8 394 Florida * FL 12.7 2872 Texas * TX 12.7 3683 Maryland * MD 12.6 757 Oregon * OR 12.6 566 North Dakota * ND 12.4 93 Michigan * MI 12.1 1220 Pennsylvania * PA 11.7 1541 Virginia * VA 11.7 1025 Maine ME 11.5 163 Illinois * IL 10.8 1367 New Hampshire NH 10.7 156 WA 10.7 842 NE 10.4 205 WI 10 604 DE 9.9 93 VT 9.3 67 IA 9.1 294 MN 8.1 465 CA 7.2 2945 CT 5.3 190 RI 4.6 48 HI 4.4 62 NJ 4.1 368 NY 3.9 804 MA 3.4 247
Mass shootings and ordinary gun violence are very different events, very different situations, with totally different causes and likely very different solutions or even no solutions at all (e.g. suicide where, if someone wants to kill themselves, the lack of a gun sure ain’t stopping them).
Also, how many of those firearm deaths were illegal shootings? How many were criminals shot by law enforcement, or by someone defending themselves, or suicides? How many of the illegal shootings were perpetrated by convicted felons or other people whom the law already bans from owning firearms?
How many were illegal shootings committed by previously law abiding people?
What‘s the breakdown on how many deaths were there by which type of guns?
Last edited:
What's the expression...you miss all the shots you don't take?
It seems like most permits are approved. I think the gun lobby just doesn't want to concede that and the number of applications are low because guns are not part of NJ's culture. Thankfully we have the lowest rate of gun ownership in America. It's one of the things that makes NJ the best state to live in.
Yeah, that's not true. Adam Kizinger (Republican) and Mikie Sherill (Dem) both voted for the gun packages in the House and served our country overseas and that's just two.
You must be thinking of someone who said "take the guns first then due process" who was an infamous draft dodger.
Canada had a mass shooting. They passed gun control. They have 11 kids shot in school in the intervening decades.
Australia same.
Are we still going with other former British colonies with strong gun culture, the common law, and a strong history of democracy, immigration and frontier culture are just not the same for "reasons?"
As you are no doubt well aware, in CA mass shootings have often come from Nevada. In NJ the closest lax gun state these days is maybe North Carolina. It's why New England has even better numbers in some places than NJ- it's just too far.
Yet Canada manages next to gun land- despite a very high rate of gun ownership itself- to not have these problems. You really want to argue that Canada is too culturally distinguished from the US, you have to provide some kind of rationale for it. They literally have the same TV, music, movies released simultaneously, the same language, sold the same products, etc...
THis isn't true. They're like, different. It's Canada. They're not like us. No one is like us. Gun control can't work here. You don't understand. It just can't.
You clearly don't spend much time at shooting ranges in NJ. Trust me, there are many thousands of NJ residents who are gun owners and who visit shooting ranges pretty regularly. And plenty of them would obtain carry permits if they believed they'd have any chance of obtaining one. Although for sure, not every gun owner in NJ would carry in public even if NJ was a constitutional carry state (i.e. a state that permitted carrying without any license or permit as long as one isn't prohibited by other state or federal laws).
My personal opinion is that, in NJ, most especially in the densest parts of NJ, there is far less of a valid need to carry because there are plenty of police nearby. Also, NJ being so dense, I would advocate for limits on the number of active carry permits at any one time in those dense regions.
Incidentally, this website contains a wealth of good information about gun laws, especially as they pertain to carrying, across America (the link is for NJ, but the info is there for all states, just click the state to see the info for it):
In considering ordinary gun violence stats, the above website shows an interesting lack of consistent correlation between certain gun laws and low rates. For instance MN is pretty near the bottom of the ordinary gun violence stats posted a few posts up. But it has fairly permissive gun laws. However, this thread isn't about ordinary gun violence, it's about mass shootings where the lack of consistent correlation is even more clear.
California does have a higher percentage of mass shootings than WV
But we must take into account the more the population , the more likely a higher amount of mass shootings because of it
https://www.wwno.org/news/2022-05-25/louisiana-leads-nation-in-rate-of-mass-shootings-in-2022
When talking about gun reform mass shooting incidents are just one part of it and total gun deaths can't be discounted when discussing needed gun reform.
Just like how guns are secured must be part of the conversation, when criminals using guns are made part of the conversation .
One city admits it has that problem
— The Knoxville Police Department is urging residents to secure their firearms with nearly 80 guns reported stolen from cars so far in 2022. Police said 134 guns were reported stolen within the city limits this year, including 76 stolen from cars or trucks.
We have seen cases where individuals who engage in gun violence go out and look for unlocked cars to try to find guns,” Knoxville Police Lieutenant Josh Shaffer. “Those guns are taken into homes overnight, people are leaving their cars open. It was very eye-opening how many were taken, and from a fully unlocked car.”
The problem is so prevalent that even Second Amendment advocate lawmakers are trying to roll back bills they said allowed Tennesseeans to leave guns in their cars.----
https://darik.news/tennessee/knoxvi...are-stolen-from-unlocked-vehicles/626445.html
But we must take into account the more the population , the more likely a higher amount of mass shootings because of it
https://www.wwno.org/news/2022-05-25/louisiana-leads-nation-in-rate-of-mass-shootings-in-2022
When talking about gun reform mass shooting incidents are just one part of it and total gun deaths can't be discounted when discussing needed gun reform.
Just like how guns are secured must be part of the conversation, when criminals using guns are made part of the conversation .
One city admits it has that problem
— The Knoxville Police Department is urging residents to secure their firearms with nearly 80 guns reported stolen from cars so far in 2022. Police said 134 guns were reported stolen within the city limits this year, including 76 stolen from cars or trucks.
We have seen cases where individuals who engage in gun violence go out and look for unlocked cars to try to find guns,” Knoxville Police Lieutenant Josh Shaffer. “Those guns are taken into homes overnight, people are leaving their cars open. It was very eye-opening how many were taken, and from a fully unlocked car.”
The problem is so prevalent that even Second Amendment advocate lawmakers are trying to roll back bills they said allowed Tennesseeans to leave guns in their cars.----
https://darik.news/tennessee/knoxvi...are-stolen-from-unlocked-vehicles/626445.html
Go back and check out my list of proposed new, or strengthened, gun regulations. On that list is a timeout period for any gun owner who has a gun stolen (e.g. the owner must forfeit all guns and their ability to purchase more for 12 months, or something along those lines).
A lot of thinking went into that list, along with some inside knowledge of how legal guns can become illegal guns. The "stolen gun law" is part of that.
Again, I'm all for gun regulation that makes us safer. And there are plenty of laws that can do that.
I'm just opposed to gun regulation that cannot or does not work and/or makes innocent and law-abiding people less safe.
NJ has gun control and you said it's working people should have it everywhere. NJ doesn't ban semiautomatic rifles.
WV has virtually no gun control and pretty much the fewest mass shootings of any state.
So why would we look at Canada or Europe or anyplace else?
yes one of the fewest mass shootings, but not so great otherwise.
About the middle of pack when it comes to homicides committed by using a gun.
>West Virginia is 24th in the nation in gun homicides. Data shows 23% of West Virginia's gun deaths are by homicide and 71% by suicide.<
West Virginia
In an average year, 330 people die by guns.
With a rate of 17.8 deaths per 100,000 people, West Virginia has the 13th-highest rate of gun deaths in the US.
National average
40,620 people die by guns in an average year, a rate of 12.2 deaths per 100,000 people.
(source)
https://wchstv.com/news/local/charleston-community-pleads-for-end-to-gun-violence-nationally-locally
The site linked by the text “24th in the nation” groups homicides and shootings by police together making it impossible to know how many are which. Wonder why that site combines those two stats into one.
But even still, combined, the rate is 5 per 100,000 or 0.00005 or 0.005%. MN has 1.9 per 100,000 and much less strict gun laws than NJ. NJ has 3.0 per 100,000.
Sorry, but that’s not nearly enough to toss away people’s right to defend themselves or to toss the second amendment.
To put WV’s 5 per 100,000 in perspective, according to the CDC’s data, 146 people die of cancer per 100,000 people. That’s 29 times more deaths than the combined number of homicides and cop shootings. Yet cigarettes aren’t banned, charcoal grilling isn’t banned, non-stick pans aren’t banned, etc.
In 2019, there were 15.78 traffic deaths per 100,000 licensed drivers. We haven’t banned cars.
And again, how many of the gun deaths are committed with illegal firearms versus legal firearms owned by previously law abiding people? We don’t even know what type of guns to ban, based in that website. I wonder how many were killed by an AR-15 style rifle.
I hang around this board enough to know all kinds of complaints but I also know several gun owners. Guns are like most things in NJ. If you know the rules and follow them...you'll be fine.
Correct NJ's laws should be national. But they can always be better.
Why look at Canada and Europe...because they have even less shootings than the already low number in NJ.
Do most Americans live in a place that looks like NJ, or one that looks WV? When most Americans open their front door, do they see something that looks like WV or something that looks like what most Canadians see?
Most of America isn't rural. WV is one of the most rural states, second only to perhaps Wyoming. WV is also hemorrhaging population while most places gain. It's not very emblematic of anything.
And still, if someone in rural WV is afraid about police getting to them slowly, they can have as many background check-passed handguns locked in a safe as their heart desires as far as I'm concerned.
SCOTUS just ruled on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. Will have ramifications in NJ.
“In this case, petitioners and respondents agree that ordinary, law-abiding citizens have a similar right to carry handguns publicly for their self-defense. We too agree, and now hold, consistent with Heller and McDonald, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the Court's opinion. "Because the State of New York issues public-carry licenses only when an applicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense, we conclude that the State’s licensing regime violates the Constitution."
Yes, that was predictable. The nation can have gun control. But it cannot penalize law-abiding people for the crimes committed by criminals, especially when those criminals pay no attention to the laws in the first place making such laws pointless.
The list I proposed days ago is what gun control advocates should be aiming to get enacted. Not only would it actually be effective (IMO), but it also strikes a balance that might just make it past the court... maybe.
We're going in circles. If WV doesn't look like NJ, then why should we create a national law rather than let states do what works for themselves? Most of America is geographically rural. Most Americans live in cities. So let each city make it's own laws (as NYC does) and let all rural areas make their own laws.
Trying to shoe-horn a single gun law across a nation that you yourself keep pointing out has very varied regions makes no sense at all. Why penalize people who choose to live rurally for the problems experienced by people who choose to live in cities? Or vice-versa. How is that freedom in any way, shape or form?
Any decision based on Heller, which is deeply flawed, is by extension a horrible decision.
Last edited:
- Status