4 shot, possibly 41 hostages in NY

[Ian]

Taken from AP:

BINGHAMTON, N.Y. (AP) -- A gunman entered an immigration services center in downtown Binghamton on Friday, shot at least four people and took as many as 41 hostage, according to media reports.

Mayor Matthew Ryan told the Binghamton Press & Sun Bulletin that there was a hostage situation involving a gunman with a high-powered rifle.

The condition of the victims wasn't immediately clear. A Binghamton police dispatcher who spoke to The Associated Press wouldn't confirm a number of people shot or injured.

The newspaper reported 41 hostages in the building of the American Civic Association and said apartments were being evacuated.

Emergency dispatchers were in contact with some people inside by phone, WBNG-TV reported. The gunman might still be in the building, the newspaper reported.

Four people were removed from the building on stretchers and taken to hospitals, and 10 more ambulances were called, the newspaper reported. The Binghamton SWAT team responded.

Linda Miller, a spokeswoman at Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Binghamton, confirmed that a student from Binghamton University was being treated at the emergency room. Miller said she didn't know the nature of the injuries.

"We're on full alert anticipating we're going to get additional casualties," Miller said.

The area is a commercial stretch on the west side of the Chenango River. Police have locked down a nearby high school and advised local business owners to stay inside.

People escaped to the basement of the building and more than a dozen people hid in a closet, WBNG reported.

The American Civic Association describes itself as helping immigrants and refugees with counseling, resettlement, citizenship, family reunification and translators.

It also intervenes with emergencies, including fighting, hunger and homelessness, according to information from the association's Web site.

[LTb1ow]

Never understood how someone can logically think that a hostage taking plan will work for em.

And damn, another anti gun rallying point, way to go you, *******.

People these days....

[Knipps]

damn, I hadn't even heard of this..
And damn, another anti gun rallying point, way to go you, *******.

People these days....
Uh, if everyone else had a gun you think he would have made it this far?

[LTb1ow]

I hope your being jestful, you think the powers to be see it that way? I think not.

[sweetbmxrider]

thats crazy

[JW]

***Update***

Gunman takes up to 41 hostages, kills 12 in Binghamton, N.Y.

JW :D

[98tadriver]

oh damn. i havent been following this. did they capture or kill the gunman?

[baddest434]

WOW what a wonderful world we live in. that insane

[NJ Torque]

still on the large?

[WildBillyT]

Part of me is not surprised. Binghamton is depressing.

[JL8Jeff]

12 or 13 dead and the gunman is dead.

[Ian]

Never understood how someone can logically think that a hostage taking plan will work for em.

And damn, another anti gun rallying point, way to go you, *******.

People these days....

damn, I hadn't even heard of this..

Uh, if everyone else had a gun you think he would have made it this far?

people who have common sense will be able to see that and armed civilian could have possibly prevented this situation. Politicians , however, will blame the weapon used instead of the mentally ill operator of said weapon.

[DevilDougWS6]

people who have common sense will be able to see that and armed civilian could have possibly prevented this situation. Politicians , however, will blame the weapon used instead of the mentally ill operator of said weapon.

exactly. its because they just want more votes from the people that think they are "logical" when they dont use common sense to judge situations. they think with their heart instead of their head...stupid hippies.

[ar0ck]

Binghamton is a real nasty area, it doesn't shock me one bit. Very unfortunate for the people involved.

[BonzoHansen]

Never understood how someone can logically think that a hostage taking plan will work for em.
Never apply logic to illogical people/actions.

[NJSPEEDER]

Binghampton is where my cousin is a sharp shooter for SWAT. Not sure what would bring someone to the point of doing something like this, just know that there is a lot of stupid in the world.

[Ian]

Binghampton is where my cousin is a sharp shooter for SWAT. Not sure what would bring someone to the point of doing something like this, just know that there is a lot of stupid in the world.

too bad the gunman offed himself before your cousin could alleviate his skull of some pink mist :twisted:

[Frosty]

people who have common sense will be able to see that and armed civilian could have possibly prevented this situation. Politicians , however, will blame the weapon used instead of the mentally ill operator of said weapon.

:werd:

[BigAls87Z28]

If guns were banned, then this wouldnt have happend.
Cant kill 14 people with a sling shot.

[NJSPEEDER]

too bad the gunman offed himself before your cousin could alleviate his skull of some pink mist :twisted:

My cousin, while a very talented crack redneck shot, only has 3 kills to his credit. I believe the tally is 2 pit bull and a rotty. lol

They have a lot of big drug busts(speed) with guard dogs and dog fighting issues up there. As a sharp shooter, defending his fellow officers includes any dog that jumps. Seems the average drug dealers sees his dog picked off from 50+ meters and suddenly they get a moment of clarity about their odds of survival if they fight the cops. lol

[Frosty]

If guns were banned, then this wouldnt have happend.
Cant kill 14 people with a sling shot.

Then he could have stabbed someone, he could have bludgeoned them to death with a bat.

The point is if someone is that mentally ill and wants to kill someone then they're going to do it with whatever means they have.

Regardless of that a little thing called the Constitution is in place...but then again that seems to slowly be eroding with each passing president.

BTW, you realize most gun crimes are committed with UNREGISTERED, ILLEGAL guns right? Your average Joe who has his guns legally typically doesn't commit crimes with them.

[Ian]

If guns were banned, then this wouldnt have happend.
Cant kill 14 people with a sling shot.

guns were banned in Washington D.C. and, oh my god, they still had gun crimes! but, but, but that's not possible....the guns were banned. once somethings banned no one in the world has it anymore! this can't be! [/sarcasm]

banning guns disarms honest citizens, thats it! criminals dont follow the laws, ergo criminals will still have guns. banning guns would not have prevented that man from getting a gun and killing those people. Myabe it would have been harder for him to get his hands on one, but if he wanted to he could!

Now lets pretend for a moment that the leftists of America get their wish and guns are now banned and somehow, magically, every gun in America disappears. that does not change the fact that there is something wrong with this guy mentally and he wants to kill people. now he is going to use the next best/most readily available weapon to commit his crimes.

see, banning guns or any weapon for that matter isn't going to make much of a difference if it makes any difference at all. If someone wants to kill someone, they are going to find a way to do it. If every honest citizen in this country was disarmed, criminals would have a field day.

[WildBillyT]

Fine. Want to mass kill without a gun? Make a bomb out of **** you can buy at Home Depot. If you want to get it done you can get it done.

[BigAls87Z28]

Then he could have stabbed someone, he could have bludgeoned them to death with a bat.

The point is if someone is that mentally ill and wants to kill someone then they're going to do it with whatever means they have.

Regardless of that a little thing called the Constitution is in place...but then again that seems to slowly be eroding with each passing president.

BTW, you realize most gun crimes are committed with UNREGISTERED, ILLEGAL guns right? Your average Joe who has his guns legally typically doesn't commit crimes with them.

Eh..he would have maybe hurt 1-2 people with a knife, maybe one dead before people beat him down. But with a gun...well, thats a different story.


guns were banned in Washington D.C. and, oh my god, they still had gun crimes! but, but, but that's not possible....the guns were banned. once somethings banned no one in the world has it anymore! this can't be! [/sarcasm]

banning guns disarms honest citizens, thats it! criminals dont follow the laws, ergo criminals will still have guns. banning guns would not have prevented that man from getting a gun and killing those people. Myabe it would have been harder for him to get his hands on one, but if he wanted to he could!

Now lets pretend for a moment that the leftists of America get their wish and guns are now banned and somehow, magically, every gun in America disappears. that does not change the fact that there is something wrong with this guy mentally and he wants to kill people. now he is going to use the next best/most readily available weapon to commit his crimes.

see, banning guns or any weapon for that matter isn't going to make much of a difference if it makes any difference at all. If someone wants to kill someone, they are going to find a way to do it. If every honest citizen in this country was disarmed, criminals would have a field day.


I dont belive in banning wepons, but this person had both guns registerd and was just another normal human being, and killed 14 people. The police, who also had guns, didnt do jack. the guy killed himself.

IMO, not a great day for gun control.

[WildBillyT]

IMO, not a great day for gun control.

QFT.

That can't be argued at all.

[Tsar]

Can't mass murder people without guns?

Remind me how many guns were on board hijacked airplanes on 9/11? If someone wants to kill someone, they will find away.

[WildBillyT]

Can't mass murder people without guns?

Remind me how many guns were on board hijacked airplanes on 9/11? If someone wants to kill someone, they will find away.

That was my point. I was also thinking about 9/11. Box cutters were enough that day.

[Ian]

Eh..he would have maybe hurt 1-2 people with a knife, maybe one dead before people beat him down. But with a gun...well, thats a different story.





I dont belive in banning wepons, but this person had both guns registerd and was just another normal human being, and killed 14 people. The police, who also had guns, didnt do jack. the guy killed himself.

IMO, not a great day for gun control.

thats where you lost me. He was not a normal human being. Normal people dont kill others because they lost their job.

maybe society is to blame. maybe if people close to him talked to him about his problems this wouldn't have happened. maybe it would have. impossible to tell.

and as far as it not being a great day for gun control, I respond that it was not a great day because of gun control.

[WildBillyT]

thats where you lost me. He was not a normal human being. Normal people dont kill others because they lost their job.

maybe society is to blame. maybe if people close to him talked to him about his problems this wouldn't have happened. maybe it would have. impossible to tell.

and as far as it not being a great day for gun control, I respond that it was not a great day because of gun control.

Any day there is a high profile firearm "tragedy" the media always spins it into an anti-gun extravaganza- no matter how wrong it may be. That's bad.

[Ian]

bad day as far as anti-gun media? absolutely! I just meant that if people were allowed to carry, this whole mess might not have happened.

[Frosty]

Al, you're right, if the guy had a knife maybe two people die. Lets look at the bigger picture. The right to own a gun is for the masses to protect themselves. I'm in no way making light of the situation today and my thoughts and prayers go out to the families but it seems like that anti-gun people have tunnel vision. Today will be used as ONE incident where guns are evil and if there weren't any this would have never happened. What about the times where a robber was thwarted or a home invasion was stopped because your ever day citizen had a legal gun and used it the way it was meant to be used. The right is to protect the masses. If you take away that right or severely limit that right the criminals win. The criminals have the upper hand. The police can't always be there for you.

Not to mention that right goes WAY further than protecting yourself from criminals. It was also meant to protect you from a highly powerful government which is only getting stronger. Now I'm not saying we should revolt or join a militia but we shouldn't forget the other meaning of gun rights.

Ian, nice avatar. :rofl:

[Ian]

Thanks Frosty and well said!

[BigAls87Z28]

First off, no one is above the law and its still illegal to kill someone, no matter what it is. Only in Texas is it ok to protect yourself, and only in your "castle".

What if others had guns? So then it turns into a shoot out with untrained amatures with big guns, shooting at eachother? whos the bad guy? Whos the good guy? How many MORE people die? No one is above the law, and no one there has the right to kill another human.
The cops had guns, and the guy killed a half dozen without a single shot fired by trained professionals. So if cops, an organized group of law enforcement officers didnt fire a single round to end it, what gives regular people the right to do so? And whos to say that people will be ok mentally about taking another life? COD video games are one thing, but in real life, could you? Sure, you can say it now, but Im sure that anyone here that has taken a life has had training. Your average member here would hesitate at teh moment and would end up dying themselves.

Look, Im just playing the aspect of the anti-gun person. I belive that everyoen has the right to own a gun. I dont belive that everyone needs to CARRY the damn thing, or that people need sub machine guns with drums of ammo. I dont see the need to have a .50 sniper rifle be legalized. I belive in a reformed gun control, and that people should be educated and not just be shunned. But gun control is like sex education, there is general idea of how things are done, but not one is really sure what the hell is going on.
It leads to a larger and greater problem.
IMO, if it was Pres Big Al at the podium, gun control would be on the back burner for a long time. Gun contorl is a distraction issue IMO. No one will take them away 100%, but no one is gunna give you 100% access to everything.
It will be in the gray area forever. Education is 10003403284032804 more important then the right to own a AR-15 with a 50 round drum with night vision, supressor, and colapsable stock.

[Knipps]

Home defense laws exist outside of TX iirc

[Ian]

First off, no one is above the law and its still illegal to kill someone, no matter what it is. Only in Texas is it ok to protect yourself, and only in your "castle".

it is perfectly legal to kill someone if you are "in fear of your life" within your home. Texas and Florida both have the "castle doctrine". In Texas it can also cover protecting others. For example, in Texas if you saw someone pull a gun on someone else, you are legally allowed to draw and fire on that person.

What if others had guns? So then it turns into a shoot out with untrained amatures with big guns, shooting at eachother? (who's to say the "good guys" are untrained?) whos the bad guy? Whos the good guy? How many MORE people die? No one is above the law, and no one there has the right to kill another human. If my life is in danger, I should be allowed to take whatever action I can to preserve it. I have unalienable rights same as the next person. life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The cops had guns, and the guy killed a half dozen without a single shot fired by trained professionals. So if cops, an organized group of law enforcement officers didnt fire a single round to end it, what gives regular people the right to do so? the police were not in the building with the shooter, they arrived to a possible hostage situation. entering the building would only put the possible hostages at risk. its a very bad situation all around. I'm sure if the police were able to get a shot off at the gunman, they would have. And whos to say that people will be ok mentally about taking another life? COD video games are one thing, but in real life, could you? Sure, you can say it now, but Im sure that anyone here that has taken a life has had training. Your average member here would hesitate at teh moment and would end up dying themselves. that is up to each individual to decide for themselves. if you feel you wouldn't be able to take a life to save your own or someone elses, dont carry a gun. its really that simple. why would someone carry a gun if they had no intention of using it to defend themselves?

Look, Im just playing the aspect of the anti-gun person. I belive that everyoen has the right to own a gun. I dont belive that everyone needs to CARRY the damn thing, or that people need sub machine guns with drums of ammo. I dont see the need to have a .50 sniper rifle be legalized. you're right, not everyone needs to carry a gun, but that shouldn't mean the people that want to should be denied. I dont really have a solid opinion about submachine guns, I dont see the purpose of having one, but who am I to tell someone what they can buy with their money. Same goes for .50 caliber rifles. I do think its pretty trivial to have magazine capacity restrictions for hand guns and semi auto rifles. Mag capacity isn't gonna save anyones life and you're a fool if you think otherwise. it takes seconds to change a mag, and with all the citizens being unarmed, there is no one to shoot at the gunman while their reloading. I belive in a reformed gun control, and that people should be educated and not just be shunned. But gun control is like sex education, there is general idea of how things are done, but not one is really sure what the hell is going on.
It leads to a larger and greater problem.
IMO, if it was Pres Big Al at the podium, gun control would be on the back burner for a long time. Gun contorl is a distraction issue IMO. No one will take them away 100%, but no one is gunna give you 100% access to everything.
It will be in the gray area forever. Education is 10003403284032804 more important then the right to own a AR-15 with a 50 round drum with night vision, supressor, and colapsable stock.whats the big deal about collapsible stocks anyway? it doesnt make the weapon any more lethal than it is with a fixed stock...

...

[Frosty]

Al, just curious. What would gun control have done to stop yesterday's incident? Just curious.

[LTb1ow]

Tougher to have gotten the two pistols and tougher to get ammo for them.

They should really just have a better screening process, I would be ok with that.

[Ian]

Tougher to have gotten the two pistols and tougher to get ammo for them.

They should really just have a better screening process, I would be ok with that.

I could go to newark and get a pistol TODAY if I wanted to (illegally), gun laws dont affect criminals.

[Tsar]

Tougher to have gotten the two pistols and tougher to get ammo for them.

I buy ammo online, probably from Texas. They ship it to my door :lol:

[Ian]

I buy ammo online, probably from Texas. They ship it to my door :lol:

I do too, and not just a box of 50 rnds either :wink:

[Tsar]

I do too, and not just a box of 50 rnds either :wink:
:lol: I think last time I got 400, but it's been awhile.


I think people that argue for gun control need to go to a country that has one, and live there for a little. I volunteer Russia, because I'm quite familiar with it. Don't be surprised when you run into dudes with AK-47's :lol:

[98tadriver]

Eh..he would have maybe hurt 1-2 people with a knife, maybe one dead before people beat him down. But with a gun...well, thats a different story.

IMO, not a great day for gun control.



what if he had throwing knives like that mexican guy in desperado? he was pretty good

[Frosty]

Tougher to have gotten the two pistols and tougher to get ammo for them.

They should really just have a better screening process, I would be ok with that.

See one of my previous posts and what Ian said...

It just so happens that these guns were legally registered in this case. The NE corridor is the worst in the country as far as illegal guns go. Between DC, Philly and northern NJ you could EASILY obtain an illegal gun.

Sooooo who is to say that if this guy couldn't get his guns legally that he wouldn't have just bought a few from Paco on the street corner?

[Tsar]

Sooooo who is to say that if this guy couldn't get his guns legally that he wouldn't have just bought a few from Paco on the street corner?

This reminds me of something. Last year he had a French exchange student here, we were hiking on day and somehow got to talking about guns. I said I had one, and she just had that "holy ****balls batman" look on her face. So I asked her what's up - her response baffled me. She said only bad people have guns.... guns in France are not legal. So what is wrong with her statement?

[LTb1ow]

Bad guys run law abiding citizens?

[sweetbmxrider]

i think people should stop being pussies. though i have never been in a situation like such, i know a box cutter isn't stopping me. i cut myself with those all the time :lol: (by accident, no emo****!)

[NastyEllEssWon]

banning guns will just keep guns away from those that follow laws. taking guns away from law obiding citizens will just make it easier for things like this to happen.



scenario in ny if guns were more commonplace:



guy bursts in job he lost. Fires shot kills one person. Someone off to the side pulls their gun and lodges one in his temple. Day over.


Tragic? Indeed. Catastrophe? its not

[LTb1ow]

banning guns will just keep guns away from those that follow laws. taking guns away from law obiding citizens will just make it easier for things like this to happen.



scenario in ny if guns were more commonplace:



guy bursts in job he lost. Fires shot kills one person. Someone off to the side pulls their gun and lodges one in his temple. Day over.


Tragic? Indeed. Catastrophe? its not

Since Al has not replied I shall take his lead as anti gun. In your scenario you depend on some ordinary citizen to pull out a gun, in a stressful environment and somehow pull off a head shot?

Cmon now, you can't be serious.... That would just turn into a nightmare both for the cops entering and the people inside, whom if all had guns prob would just be havoc.

[sweetbmxrider]

yeah who is going to be able to distinguish the good citizen from the bad guy? what if he misses and kills another bystander then someone else shoots at him thinking they're an accomplice? yeah gooooooood luuuuuuccckkkk

[NastyEllEssWon]

since the common misconception that guns are bad has been a stigma since the late 70s (thanks for nothing hippies) i can see someone being uncomfortable with a handgun.



now imagine this year they repeal bans on carrying a concealed REGISTERED LEGAL weapon and the bigwigs adopt the GUNS ARE GOOD slogan. what happens?

the next generation growing up will be comfortable around guns and have grown up around them. i shot my first gun was i was 10 years old and by no means am i professional, but im comfortable and steady enough to lodge a few well aimed shots.


its just how people grow up. the same arguments here can be made for some other things that are illegal but shouldnt be.

[Frosty]

Hang on guys, we're confusing two big things here. There's a difference between the right to own guns and the right to carry concealed....BIG difference.

[NastyEllEssWon]

what goods a gun at home locked in a cabinet while your being held at gunpoint

[JL8Jeff]

You guys are all assuming that our founding fathers meant the right to bear arms was for self defense. It wasn't meant for that purpose, it was meant for the purpose of defending our country. So arming yourself with a gun to shoot your neighbor when he breaks in to steal a loaf of bread is not defensable. The right to bear arms was meant to be controlled by the gov't. :rofl: Kind of ironic, isn't it! :nod:

-

[LTb1ow]

The right to bear arms was to defend the country from tyrannical leaders who disregard the Constitution and other founding ideals.

[Savage_Messiah]

banning guns will just keep guns away from those that follow laws. taking guns away from law obiding citizens will just make it easier for things like this to happen.



scenario in ny if guns were more commonplace:



guy bursts in job he lost. Fires shot kills one person. Someone off to the side pulls their gun and lodges one in his temple. Day over.


Tragic? Indeed. Catastrophe? its not

Due the the complete and utter stupidity of most people, that would end up more like, guy kills someone, everyone pulls their guns, panics, doesnt even know who shot first, miss their shots, everyone dies

[NastyEllEssWon]

thin the herd

[jims69camaro]

:lol: I think last time I got 400, but it's been awhile.


I think people that argue for gun control need to go to a country that has one, and live there for a little. I volunteer Russia, because I'm quite familiar with it. Don't be surprised when you run into dudes with AK-47's :lol:

you don't need to go that far away. Kngston, Jamaica is closer. go there and walk from one garrison to the next and see if you don't get shot at.

gun control laws do not affect the criminal. criminals buy their guns illegally. banning guns of a specific type doesn't work, nor do magazine limits. they are all pacifiers for the sheep.

[BigAls87Z28]

Al, just curious. What would gun control have done to stop yesterday's incident? Just curious.

Gun control, as it sits now, does nothing. He followed the law to the T. And that poses a problem. How do we know who is crazy, who should be able to own a wepon?
On one side, you say that since we cannot figure out who is qualified to own a wepon, and who isnt, then we should either remove all wepons or give everyone a wepon.

banning guns will just keep guns away from those that follow laws. taking guns away from law obiding citizens will just make it easier for things like this to happen.

scenario in ny if guns were more commonplace:



guy bursts in job he lost. Fires shot kills one person. Someone off to the side pulls their gun and lodges one in his temple. Day over.


Tragic? Indeed. Catastrophe? its not

Ok, so who is right in that situation? Yes the depressed man who lost his job is in the wrong, but does that give the right to the other bystandard to take another mans life? No it does not. He is not above the law, he took a mans life, and he will pay with his life.
Yet another aspect is that are you willing to spend the rest of your life in jail for taking the life of someone? You kill someone, be it defense or offense, you broke the law and now you will pay.
And secondly...your average citizen is not that accurate. Best case is that he hits the person, the person goes down but is has a life altering injury, and he would sue you for discharging your wepon and destroying his life.


yeah who is going to be able to distinguish the good citizen from the bad guy? what if he misses and kills another bystander then someone else shoots at him thinking they're an accomplice? yeah gooooooood luuuuuuccckkkk

since the common misconception that guns are bad has been a stigma since the late 70s (thanks for nothing hippies) i can see someone being uncomfortable with a handgun.

now imagine this year they repeal bans on carrying a concealed REGISTERED LEGAL weapon and the bigwigs adopt the GUNS ARE GOOD slogan. what happens?

the next generation growing up will be comfortable around guns and have grown up around them. i shot my first gun was i was 10 years old and by no means am i professional, but im comfortable and steady enough to lodge a few well aimed shots.


its just how people grow up. the same arguments here can be made for some other things that are illegal but shouldnt be.



No one will ever take the right of an American to own a gun away..no one.
I dont care how right wing crazy facist religious miltant stone cold **** nuts you are, you will never loose the right to own a gun.

But in an elevated and educated society, we can evolve past the level of violence, that is the ultimate target.

Again, Im not a fan of removing the right to own a gun, and I belive that people should be educated on saftey use of several subjects.

[jims69camaro]

thin the herd

amen.

kill 'em all, let god sort them out. i'll never forget that bumper sticker, seen in the '70s on a white van with painted flames. the other bumper sticker on that van was: they can have my gun when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

[NastyEllEssWon]

if there is a person in the room that is threatening the life of everyone in the room then yes....i do have the right to take his life to stop him from taking mine. its called justifiable homicide.





heres an interesting twist....



a rabid dog bursts into your job and starts biting people. would you kill the dog? why is a human any different?

[sweetbmxrider]

:lol: dogs can't justify as you put it

[Tsar]

Yet another aspect is that are you willing to spend the rest of your life in jail for taking the life of someone? You kill someone, be it defense or offense, you broke the law and now you will pay.

You never learned about self defense, ehh?

[BigAls87Z28]

if there is a person in the room that is threatening the life of everyone in the room then yes....i do have the right to take his life to stop him from taking mine. its called justifiable homicide.





heres an interesting twist....



a rabid dog bursts into your job and starts biting people. would you kill the dog? why is a human any different?


Show me the law where its ok to kill someone. Show me that exception in the US Constitution, the same document that people hold up when they want their rights upheld.

A dog is an animal, and does not have the same rights as a human, and as of right now there is no law that gives animals the same rights as humans. Some humans might think they do, but they dont.
What usually happens is the dog is put down due to the saftey risk that it imposes to people. Just as if a human were to rampage into a building and start biting, hitting, shooting people.

[jims69camaro]

That COULD just turn into a nightmare both for the cops entering and the people inside, whom if all had guns prob COULD just be havoc.

just having a gun doesn't make a person 'bad' (cheers, tsar). just having a gun in this type of situation does not mean it will be a nightmare or havoc. not all people resort to tears in the face of a dangerous situation.

finally, it's not the gun that kills, it's the person who pulls the trigger. a gun, by itself, is not dangerous. guns are not bad. people can be bad. those people who are bad that have guns, legal or otherwise, are what causes things like binghamton and columbine.

i do not currently own any projectile weapons. the future will almost dictate that i own one or two.

[Tsar]

Here's a handy dandy self defense thingy....

A NJ criminal defense which many lay people have heard before is "self-defense". A specific statute exists in New Jersey which addresses this defense and sets forth the instances where the defense applies. In this regard, use of force is justified where it is reasonably necessary to protect the actor from another using unlawful force against the actor. The law is careful to point out, however, that self defense does not apply where: (1) the physical threat is posed by a law enforcement officer (even an unlawful arrest); or (2) the force is presented by an occupier of land who possesses a claim of right to protect the property. The nature of the force used in self defense typically has to be consistent with the risk posed. In other words, use of deadly force in self defense is only justified where it is undertaken to protect against a reasonably contemplated risk of serious injury or death.

Force to Protect Third Parties

Force may be utilized to protect others provided self defense would otherwise be justified if the risk was to the actor himself. There is an additional requirement for this defense to apply, namely, that the actor reasonably believes that the assistance is necessary to prevent harm to the third party.

This is for the state of NJ. Woohooo.

[BigAls87Z28]

Yes, but thats a very loose deffinition. If someone was to break into your house, you would have to show that you were going to be harmed, and thats hard as hell.
If they come in, steal the TV, and leave, you cant shoot them.
In Texas.... different.

[Knipps]

No. Once their back is turned the act is defined as "complete" and you cannot do a damned thing.

[Tsar]

Yes, but thats a very loose deffinition. If someone was to break into your house, you would have to show that you were going to be harmed, and thats hard as hell.
If they come in, steal the TV, and leave, you cant shoot them.
In Texas.... different.
We are not talking about stealing Tv's in here, don't change your tune, we are talking about protecting ourselves. Earlier you said that you can not do that. If anyone broke into my house and threatened me, or anyone else (in my house) I would put the statue to the test. I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6, if **** went wrong and they weren't there for a TV.
No. Once their back is turned the act is defined as "complete" and you cannot do a damned thing.
This is true indeed. They can also have a knife, but once you pull a gun on them and if they stop the aggression you must seize your defense. Otherwise it murder.

[BigAls87Z28]

We are not talking about stealing Tv's in here, don't change your tune, we are talking about protecting ourselves. Earlier you said that you can not do that. If anyone broke into my house and threatened me, or anyone else (in my house) I would put the statue to the test. I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6, if **** went wrong and they weren't there for a TV.




Im not changing my tune, Im talking about the "law" you posted up.
First off, you cannot carry in NJ unless you jump through every single hoop.
So, that means you CANNOT defend yourself in an instance like this.
So really, what are you bringing up that law for? Its for home defense, thats all.
None of what you posted means ****.

Well, there is a huge difference between stealing TV's and coming to kill you. I dont think anyone is coming to kill you unless you have crossed the mob or other dark and shaddy group of criminals.
They are robbing you, and if you shoot them, you go to jail. And you lost your life. Its either death or death from getting butt ****ed by Bubba.

[Tsar]

Please stick to being a cheerleader for GM, u do that better.

[NastyEllEssWon]

if someone used FORCEFUL means to gain entry into your locked house you have the reasonable right to diffuse the situation with a firearm. if you do not see a weapon you cannot shoot to kill, if there is reasonable danger (i.e burglar with a gun) you have the right to fire upon the assailant.





it would be the same difference if they allowed the right to carry a concealed weapon. the situation in ny is the perfect example. if your carrying a gun, it means your confidant with it and at the very least COMPETENT with it.



i liked the old song you were singing al....why'd you change the track?

[Frosty]

Gun control, as it sits now, does nothing. He followed the law to the T. And that poses a problem. How do we know who is crazy, who should be able to own a wepon?
On one side, you say that since we cannot figure out who is qualified to own a wepon, and who isnt, then we should either remove all wepons or give everyone a wepon.



I'm genuinely interested in your point of view about this. How would you change the law? If the guy was stable for years then had a breakdown in a matter of months there's NO law that would stop that. The only way to stop that is to make every gun owner get a psychiatric evaluation every 6 months, lol. That's not only impossible but it'd be a drain on an already ass-backwards health system.

The problem is every time something bad happens people rush to make laws to "fix it". That's the problem with this country, every time something goes wrong we rely on our lawmakers to come up with a solution. This obviously isn't a small issue, innocent people lost their lives but how many people die from cancer due to chemicals in the air or cigarettes?

...and man...it's spelled weapon. ;):D

[jims69camaro]

...and man...it's spelled weapon. ;):D

:kneeslap: :rofl: :kneeslap:

i saw that, but decided to concentrate on the issue. people are quick to categorize. if something doesn't fit into a neat, little category, they have trouble dealing with it. that's why this debate still goes on, because it doesn't fit into a neat, little category. it's all over the place, filled with variables and different situations that cannot be clearly defined.

you can "what-if" all you want, it comes down to the cold, hard statement that guns are not bad. guns do not kill people. people kill people.

it doesn't matter what type of gun you outlaw or what limits you put on the magazine. if someone wants to die tomorrow, then they will surely find a way to make that happen. same thing goes if they want a gun. it doesn't matter how many laws are on the books.

if you outlaw guns, then only the outlaws will have guns.

[Tsar]

if someone used FORCEFUL means to gain entry into your locked house you have the reasonable right to diffuse the situation with a firearm. if you do not see a weapon you cannot shoot to kill, if there is reasonable danger (i.e burglar with a gun) you have the right to fire upon the assailant.
but but but what if they broke into your house to plant flowers! :lol: Maybe they just brought the gun for fun!


Damn hippies.






you can "what-if" all you want, it comes down to the cold, hard statement that guns are not bad. guns do not kill people. people kill people.
Truth, my gun has been in my nightstand for quite a while now. Everyone is still alive.


if you outlaw guns, then only the outlaws will have guns.Stupid people fail to see this. It's like arguing with those pro-life pro-choice people, it's pointless. Damn I think that issue is even worse. :lol:

[sweetbmxrider]

what about the criminal who attempts to rob you but breaks his leg while trying to get it, sues you, and wins? when do you pull the trigger there? before or after you shell out the cash?

[LTb1ow]

Make you shoot to kill so there can be no evidence against you?

[Tsar]

What if the aliens invade and we all die? OMG :willy: Can I defend myself, or will I be charged with animal cruelty?

[LTb1ow]

Alien cruelty, you evil red neck you!

[Tsar]

Alien cruelty, you evil red neck you!
But "aliens" are not in the law. Which means I can't be charged with it :shrug:

[NJSPEEDER]

Garbage