Police non-response time kills - New Jersey Gun/Carry Permits issue

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: theantediluvian

How's this propaganda any better than the anti-gun crowd's propaganda?

Because the firearms laws in New Jersey are draconian and there is a mentality by many that it is okay to make you wait to exercise your Second Amendment rights.

I can give you a litany of examples like my friend who went into the Montclair police department for a purchasing permit and was told, 'We are out of them for the year' (it was May). A call to a friend who then had an NRA attorney call the police department resulted us in retuning so the pissy pants sergeant could slap a new application on the counter and give us the look of death.

Gotta love it when those in power try to illegally abuse it and get bitch-slapped by the very laws they are there to protect.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

That's quite a false dilemma though isn't it? Is it really as simple as guns vs restraining orders? They're but two potential options and not mutually exclusive. More to the point, cherry picking incidents that strike emotional chords, in support of either side of this (basically fake) political debate, is an irrational and useless endeavor. The way this woman's murder is being used is effectively no different than interviewing crying family members of mass shooting victims on TV who are pleading for "something to be done about this" and then cutting to an advocate for banning guns. I'm guessing you'd call BS on that wouldn't you?

I support a person's right to own firearms for the same reason I think that everyone should have the right to gamble, engage in prostitution, ingest intoxicating substances, marry whoever they want and do anything else so long as it doesn't harm another person. At the same time, I try to avoid things like post hoc arguments and scare tactics to sway people's opinions because I believe that rational decision making is always best.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Vasa Croe

That's quite a false dilemma though isn't it? Is it really as simple as guns vs restraining orders? They're but two potential options and not mutually exclusive. More to the point, cherry picking incidents that strike emotional chords, in support of either side of this (basically fake) political debate, is an irrational and useless endeavor. The way this woman's murder is being used is effectively no different than interviewing crying family members of mass shooting victims on TV who are pleading for "something to be done about this" and then cutting to an advocate for banning guns. I'm guessing you'd call BS on that wouldn't you?

I support a person's right to own firearms for the same reason I think that everyone should have the right to gamble, engage in prostitution, ingest intoxicating substances, marry whoever they want and do anything else so long as it doesn't harm another person. At the same time, I try to avoid things like post hoc arguments and scare tactics to sway people's opinions because I believe that rational decision making is always best.

Of course I would call BS on that. Now if they showed that this family, months prior to the shooting, had been pushing for this and had filed papers in court for such and put up cameras at the school to try to feel a sense of security, then I would be all for trying to understand their point of view.

The facts are that this lady did exactly what she was allowed to by the letter of the law.....and she died. Who knows how the outcome would have been had she had a gun? Nobody does, but she would have had a better chance to live.

I don't see this as a false dilemma at all. The law there was not followed (gun permit not issued) and as such, it is a factor in her death. She followed the law and did what they asked and filed a restraining order and got home security......none of which worked at all.

My only beef with the article was the bit where they said she should've had her permit approved in a timely manner, especially as a domestic violence victim. I get their point but....

She should've had her permit approved in a timely manner because a) the law is the law and b) she's like...an American.

originally posted by: Shamrock6

My only beef with the article was the bit where they said she should've had her permit approved in a timely manner, especially as a domestic violence victim. I get their point but.....

New Jersey is a bit absurd to begin with.

After you get your firearms ID card you need to have a separate, one-time/one-use, application to purchase a hand gun which requires ANOTHER background check.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Oh no dude I totally get that aspect. Their laws are over the top absurd.

My point was if you're going to insist on that kind of crap law, then insist on it 24/7/365. Don't insist on it and then make it even worse by not holding up YOUR end of it.

"Your" being the state, not you*

*No Masons were harmed in the making of this comment.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
My point was if you're going to insist on that kind of crap law, then insist on it 24/7/365. Don't insist on it and then make it even worse by not holding up YOUR end of it.

I agree but this is the end result when you allow government the authority to intrude into your life.

"Your" being the state, not you*

*No Masons were harmed in the making of this comment.

Sadly, there was. This topic makes me bang my head against a wall.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

At the end of the day that's the core problem here. I'm all for background checks being done and the idea of not everybody being able to own a minigun, but a simple handgun purchase by a person who can pass the background check and so on is, in a word already used, simple. I can't see what purpose it serves to have a chief of police sign off on the purchase.

Of course, that's supposing the chief gets around to actually signing it of course.

Need a pillow?

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

At the end of the day that's the core problem here. I'm all for background checks being done and the idea of not everybody being able to own a minigun, but a simple handgun purchase by a person who can pass the background check and so on is, in a word already used, simple. I can't see what purpose it serves to have a chief of police sign off on the purchase.

Of course, that's supposing the chief gets around to actually signing it of course.

Need a pillow?

Yeah...that is pretty ridiculous. The only time I ever had to have anyone sign off on anything was in Mississippi when I was buying class 3 items like suppressors, SBR's, etc. And I can completely understand why they make you do that.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
So sick of the gun laws in some of the states here....I hope this case will change things in NJ for the better.

It sure will change things. There will soon be a law to outlaw knives outside of the home. If knives were illegal, her life would have been saved.

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
So sick of the gun laws in some of the states here....I hope this case will change things in NJ for the better.

It sure will change things. There will soon be a law to outlaw knives outside of the home. If knives were illegal, her life would have been saved.

Nah...he would have used a bat or a hammer or some other means. If you're intent on killing then you will kill, regardless of the means.

Gun control only ever disarms the non-criminal. Once again, taking the tools of self defense away from good people doesn't make the bad people go away.

When will these people learn.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

I share your concerns and frustration, but....I honestly don't think anything will improve in New Jersey. From what I've observed, once a State goes anti-gun, there's no turning back. And what makes your example story even worse is that it demonstrates an even more challenging and dangerous underlying problem that's making every thing every where far worse at a rapid clip and that is simply...that the Policing authorities just don't much care anymore. There seems to be a number of reasons for police callousness and lack of interest in general, but suffice it to say that the anecdotal evidence would seem to indicate that ever more, response times are going steadily up to meet that magic 45 minute mark. More and more, cops are adopting the "clean up crew" mentality; they intentionally wait until the smoke has cleared to arrive at a scene of violence.

a reply to: TonyS

It's not my intention to derail or go off topic, but I believe it's in the same venue. Perhaps response time is increasing because officers are increasingly being put through the ringer by the public. Lawsuits are increasing, scrutiny is increasing, and pure hate for anything LEO is increasing. Any time they defend themselves, including with lethal force, they're hung out to dry in the public. Granted, some deserve it, but not all; That's not really my point.

The point is, by waiting until the only thing left to do is clean up, they avoid unnecessary, career ending, public lynches.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

That just makes me sick. Everyone should have the right to protect themselves.

a reply to: EternalSolace

I used to work around LEO's on a daily basis and there's a number of reasons response times are going up. You are absolutely correct, in reciting one reason, i.e. liability of having anything to do with actually having to confront a criminal and particularly an armed one where a shoot out is concerned. A few other reasons cited to me are as follows:
1) Many US cities have adopted the "One Cop per Car" model. No one wants to be the first cop at the scene. They will literally circle the block until some other cop gets to be the first cop at the scene.
2) Outgunned: what with the rise of so many Latin gangs, particularly MS-13, the cops feel increasingly out manned and out gunned. Best to creep up on the scene and arrive after the shooting's over.
3) Revolving door problem: if they arrest five or six gang members at a crime scene and they're in the country illegally, they'll bond out before Immigration can put a hold on them and disappear into the woodwork, often to reappear in another city.
4) Budget cuts=manpower shortage. The cities are ever more financially stressed having to payout huge retirement benefits to now retired cops and firemen. So, there's few dollars and that means they can't maintain the policing forces at the levels they used to. And with the Boomer generation retiring, because its a huge demographic, the numbers leaving are huge.
Thanks