Map of NY handgun permit holders

[red5]

Homes with handguns

It's already public record, but this is a stupid idea. More so if your home isn't on the list.

[Apex]

Most media outlets are retarded.

[Whiskey]

Within the close quarters of a house a reliable semi automatic shotgun, loaded with 00 buckshot, in the hands of a competent shooter is unbeatable. I'm not checking from my phone but the title says handgun...

Don't get me wrong, handguns are very useful for when you don't have something bigger, but a good shotgun will take down anyone indoors.

[Old Guy on a '08]

Shotgun are devastating.... but a little slow to bring to target... it's a fact. Asking any SEAL what is his weapon of choice.

I'd be more inclined to use #2 shot (won't penetrate two layers of wallboard and I don't want any collateral damage). Now a "sawed off" shotgun (which is illegal) in the hands of someone less skilled is almost as good as a pistol in the hands of a competent warrior.

[adouglas]

What a short-sighted move on the paper's part, especially in light of the current debate over weapons.

If we disregard the knee-jerk "all guns should be banned" outcry (wouldn't work anyway, with hundreds of millions of firearms already out there), the real issue is access. People who should not have them are getting hold of them illegally -- often through theft.

Someone bent on mass murder who does not have legal access to guns is going to get them any way he can. This happened in Columbine, in Newtown and in Rochester.

What better way to tell people where to go to get a gun illegally than to publish the addresses of people who have them? All that's needed is a little breaking and entering and hey, presto, you're armed.

[Whiskey]

Originally Posted by Old Guy on a '08

Shotgun are devastating.... but a little slow to bring to target... it's a fact. Asking any SEAL what is his weapon of choice.

I'd be more inclined to use #2 shot (won't penetrate two layers of wallboard and I don't want any collateral damage). Now a "sawed off" shotgun (which is illegal) in the hands of someone less skilled is almost as good as a pistol in the hands of a competent warrior.

What they prefer is probably not available to the average civvie, going on my experience of doing a few jobs alongside Irish ARW the MP7 is a firm favourite, so is the Benelli M3 with a folded stock

I live in a house made of concrete blocks, inner and otter walls, they'll stop most rounds short of a rifle.
I forget that American (or modern) houses are pretty flimsy inside

I think it takes 5.56 to break through a single 100mm block layer like the inner walls, 7.62 go straight through a single & a few concentrated rounds will shatter blockwork & get through an otter double layer pretty easily

[ahenthus]

Originally Posted by Whiskey

Within the close quarters of a house a reliable semi automatic shotgun, loaded with 00 buckshot, in the hands of a competent shooter is unbeatable. I'm not checking from my phone but the title says handgun...

Don't get me wrong, handguns are very useful for when you don't have something bigger, but a good shotgun will take down anyone indoors.

A semi auto shotgun is great, but in my situation I prefer my Rem 870 pump because if I hear an intruder downstairs I want him to hear me rack it and reconsider his course of action and depart. I know there is an argument to be made about giving up your position but I think the psychological impact of the distinct, fear inducing "racking" of a pumpgun overrides that argument in the dark.

[jman511115]

Originally Posted by red5

Homes with handguns

It's already public record, but this is a stupid idea. More so if your home isn't on the list.

When did liberals ever have good ideas?

[Old Guy on a '08]

And now, her come Fienstein
http://www.nraila.org/legislation/fe...-ban-bill.aspx

[Old Guy on a '08]

Originally Posted by adouglas

What a short-sighted move on the paper's part, especially in light of the current debate over weapons.

If we disregard the knee-jerk "all guns should be banned" outcry (wouldn't work anyway, with hundreds of millions of firearms already out there), the real issue is access. People who should not have them are getting hold of them illegally -- often through theft.

Someone bent on mass murder who does not have legal access to guns is going to get them any way he can. This happened in Columbine, in Newtown and in Rochester.

What better way to tell people where to go to get a gun illegally than to publish the addresses of people who have them? All that's needed is a little breaking and entering and hey, presto, you're armed.

If I lived in NY and my home was broken into, in either instance, I'd sue the paper for:

1. Indentifying my home as NOT HAVING a handgun and thusly inviting a breakin.
2. Indentifying my home as HAVING a handgun and thusly inviting a breakin.

[thisisbenji]

If you live in NY and are not on this map you better get yourself on it ASAP unless you want to be robbed at gun point.

Also, I'm pretty sure that I saw on CNN that the Newtown shooter got his guns from his parents who left them unlocked. Seems to me like they were legally brought into his house.

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by Old Guy on a '08

If I lived in NY and my home was broken into, in either instance, I'd sue the paper for:

1. Indentifying my home as NOT HAVING a handgun and thusly inviting a breakin.
2. Indentifying my home as HAVING a handgun and thusly inviting a breakin.

So, every property crime that happens there will be the paper's fault now? What of the crimes that happened before they published that article? And, for how long will they be responsible now? Years? Forever?

BTW, before you get your red, white, and blue panties all in a twist, I happen to disagree with the paper's actions in this case.

I also happen to wonder, who will be responsible for any acts of violence perpetrated against the reporters and other newspaper employees whose addresses and phone numbers were also published in "retaliation" for the paper's original story? You? Everyone else who can, in any remote manner, find offense in the original story?

Maybe what we need is a never-ending escalation of provocations and counter-provocations until we can get that full-blown civil war that a certain fringe minority is working so hard to prep for and seems so desperately to want.

Or maybe, we can just start acting like grownups and get down to the business of rebuilding our nation's economy and reputation, and being the great country we used to be, and can be again.

[Cab305]

FACT: Most people are shot with their own guns, in their own homes.

As a parent I want my child as far away from you and your childish vigilante fantasies as possible.
He is not allowed anywhere near your house. Your child is more than welcome to come play at my house. Protected by a security system proven infinitely much safer and effective than your ballistic skills. Armed home invasion is such a ridiculously uncommon crime, your "it's for home protection" excuse is laughable if not pathetic. If you are so scared of life you need a gun to feel safe, what are you doing on a motorcycle?

And secondly do your depends undergarments fit under your suit?

[jman511115]

Originally Posted by Cab305

FACT: Most people are shot with their own guns, in their own homes.

As a parent I want my child as far away from you and your childish vigilante fantasies as possible.
He is not allowed anywhere near your house. Your child is more than welcome to come play at my house. Protected by a security system proven infinitely much safer and effective than your ballistic skills. Armed home invasion is such a ridiculously uncommon crime, your "it's for home protection" excuse is laughable if not pathetic. If you are so scared of life you need a gun to feel safe, what are you doing on a motorcycle?

And secondly do your depends undergarments fit under your suit?

Your "fact" is incorrect.

[adouglas]

Originally Posted by thisisbenji

I'm pretty sure that I saw on CNN that the Newtown shooter got his guns from his parents who left them unlocked. Seems to me like they were legally brought into his house.

Yes, that is correct, though I'm not sure about the "unlocked" bit and the parents were divorced. His father lives in another town.

No gun laws were broken. In any event, the shooter had access to his mom's guns. Which begs the question of whether stricter gun laws would have kept this from happening. Personally I think not.

The existing laws prevented the shooter from obtaining his own guns. He was too young to get at CT handgun permit (which, depending on the town, can take months, involve notarized references from employers and other non-family members, as well as extensive background checks… this all applied to me). Connecticut also has a waiting period for long guns that applied to the shooter, which deterred him from buying a rifle a few days before the incident.

THE GUN LAWS WORKED EXACTLY AS INTENDED. THEY PREVENTED THE SHOOTER FROM BUYING A GUN. THEY DID NOT STOP THE MASSACRE.

Cab305... nice, mature response there, fella. Tell me… do you keep all poisonous materials in your house under lock and key? Perhaps people should think twice about letting their kids near your residence.

Let's take a deep breath and consider how responsible adults handle dangerous items and substances with regard to children. This goes for power tools, poisons, knives and other sharp objects, alcohol, medications and, yes, firearms. You teach kids to leave them alone, you restrict access to them by hiding them or locking them up, and you don't make a big deal out of it. This is plain, simple common sense.

My handguns are in a safe when I'm not actively handling them. On those rare occasions when kids are in my house they don't know that I own a gun and there's no way I'm going to tell them.

Securing a firearm from access by those who should not be handling it is the responsibility of the owner. Any owner who abdicates this responsibility is, frankly, behaving stupidly IMHO.

By the way, this responsibility is in fact codified in Connecticut law as follows:

CHILD PROTECTION

Safe Storage

The law imposes criminal penalties on people who store loaded firearms on their premises if they know or reasonably should know that a minor (person under age 16) is likely to gain access to them without the minor's parent's or guardian's permission (CGS § 29-37i). A person is not criminally liable if the firearm is locked up or in a location that a reasonable person considers to be secure, or carries it on his or her person or close enough so that he or she can readily retrieve it.

A person is criminally negligent if the violation of these provisions results in a minor using the firearm to injure or kill himself or someone else (CGS § 53a-217a). A violator is strictly liable for damages if a minor obtains the unlawfully stored firearm and causes the injury or death of anyone (CGS § 52-571g). The provisions do not apply if the minor obtains the firearm by unlawful entry.

Source: Connecticut Summary of Gun Legislation, http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0369.htm

Note here that the shooter was not a "minor" under the law. However, the principle of responsible storage still applies as far as I'm concerned. I don't care who you are… you're not qualified to handle my firearms without my direct supervision. Period.

[thisisbenji]

Originally Posted by Cab305

FACT: Most people are shot with their own guns, in their own homes.

As a parent I want my child as far away from you and your childish vigilante fantasies as possible.
He is not allowed anywhere near your house. Your child is more than welcome to come play at my house. Protected by a security system proven infinitely much safer and effective than your ballistic skills. Armed home invasion is such a ridiculously uncommon crime, your "it's for home protection" excuse is laughable if not pathetic. If you are so scared of life you need a gun to feel safe, what are you doing on a motorcycle?

And secondly do your depends undergarments fit under your suit?

This is dumb. Why not have both security system and guns? Also why would your child be able to access your guns? There's these things called gun safes.

[red5]

Originally Posted by Cab305

FACT: Most people are shot with their own guns, in their own homes.

As a parent I want my child as far away from you and your childish vigilante fantasies as possible.
He is not allowed anywhere near your house. Your child is more than welcome to come play at my house. Protected by a security system proven infinitely much safer and effective than your ballistic skills. Armed home invasion is such a ridiculously uncommon crime, your "it's for home protection" excuse is laughable if not pathetic. If you are so scared of life you need a gun to feel safe, what are you doing on a motorcycle?

And secondly do your depends undergarments fit under your suit?

Where on earth were you taught this bit of knowledge? I'll take my "ballistic skills" over an 8-12 minute police response time any day.

Honestly, the chances of needing a gun to defend yourself during a home invasion are in fact pretty slim. Chances of my house burning down are also pretty slim, but I carry insurance none the less.

Plus, guns are pretty fun.

[Old Guy on a '08]

Cab, No ill will towards you but John, Andrew, Benji and Chris (thanks for the support guys ) all make more credible arguments then yours. I hope and pray that you (and all others never) have to some face to face with an invader, be they armed with nothing more than the ability to bench press 300lbs, or a club, knife, or gun... or something worse. I take issue with you comments and I've put my comments in red below

Originally Posted by Cab305

Your child is more than welcome to come play at my house.
They won't be allowed to visit you as you've already indicated that you are unconcerned with protecting them.

Protected by a security system proven infinitely much safer and effective...
I can disable 99% of home security systems in less then 5 minutes. Any competent burgular can probably disable the system in a lot less. Most home invaders gain entry through an unlocked door, either left that way or opened by an occupant.

...than your ballistic skills. Armed home invasion is such a ridiculously uncommon crime, your "it's for home protection" excuse is laughable if not pathetic.

I live in what is consider a relatively safe neighborhood. But in 1995, a neighbor was accosted at gun point while walking his dog around 10PM one evening. The preps (two of them) forced him to take them to his home and raped his wife at gunpint while he watched, his daughter 11 year old and her visiting friend were in the next room. (fortunately left allone and unharmed. No Help from the security system that he'd had installed only 4 months prior to the incident.

If you are so scared of life you need a gun to feel safe, what are you doing on a motorcycle?
I'm not scared of life BECAUSE I know how to protect myself, and more importantly MY FAMILY. I ride because I'm not scared of dying and, more importantly, I really enjoy it.

And secondly do your depends undergarments fit under your suit?
Your comment is more childish than your preconceptions.

Originally Posted by jman511115

Your "fact" is incorrect.

Originally Posted by red5

Where on earth were you taught this bit of knowledge?

Quoting Cab from above ..."than your ballistic skills".

I'll take my "ballistic skills" over an 8-12 minute police response time any day.
During my 20 years in the Marines, 25 times Qaulified Expert with;

• M-14
• M-16 Colt (commonly called an AR-15)
• .38 Cal Smith and Wessom revolver
• .45 Cal 1911 Colt
• 9MM Beretta

Honestly, the chances of needing a gun to defend yourself during a home invasion are in fact pretty slim. Chances of my house burning down are also pretty slim, but I carry insurance none the less.

Plus, guns are pretty fun.

And I hope you never have to depend on your Security System, or the 8-12 minute responce time of you local law enforcement

Originally Posted by adouglas

.....Let's take a deep breath and consider how responsible adults handle dangerous items and substances with regard to children. This goes for power tools, poisons, knives and other sharp objects, alcohol, medications and, yes, firearms. You teach kids to leave them alone, you restrict access to them by hiding them or locking them up, and you don't make a big deal out of it. This is plain, simple common sense.

My handguns are in a safe when I'm not actively handling them. On those rare occasions when kids are in my house they don't know that I own a gun and there's no way I'm going to tell them.
In my house there are three safes. Two of which all occupants can open in the dark without a flashlight and withdarw the pistol, loaded with a magazine and one in the chamber, which is there. My wife and childern (both now adults) know how to use these weapons and my childern were taught to use these weapons as teenagers.

Securing a firearm from access by those who should not be handling it is the responsibility of the owner. Any owner who abdicates this responsibility is, frankly, behaving stupidly IMHO. I agree... THREE SAFES

Originally Posted by thisisbenji

This is dumb. Why not have both security system and guns? Also why would your child be able to access your guns? There's these things called gun safes.

"For those that will fight for it...FREEDOM ...has a flavor the protected shall never know."

L/Cpl Edwin L. "Tim" Craft USMC, B Co 3rd AT's, Khe Sanh Combat Base, February, 1968

The story that goes with this quote can be found here... http://www.togetherweteach.com/Sayin...Craftstory.htm

[Alex]

/closed