• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would NYC Be Safer If Everyone Had a Gun?

Would NYC be be safer if everyone who could pass a background check had a gun

  • Yes

    Votes: 9 37.5%

  • No

    Votes: 15 62.5%
  • Total voters
    24
Kal'Stang said:
Actually, yes it is true. Here is a case that is currently challenging it: Link
Click to expand...

Nash is a convicted violent felon who served 8 years at Attica. This is his latest attempt to file a civil case for obtaining a permit. It is not ongoing litigation, it is a Lis Pendens, notice of action. All 7 of his previous attempts were denied hearings on the basis of his prior conviction and time served. He is still on parole.
 
OldFatGuy said:
Nash is a convicted violent felon who served 8 years at Attica. This is his latest attempt to file a civil case for obtaining a permit. It is not ongoing litigation, it is a Lis Pendens, notice of action. All 7 of his previous attempts were denied hearings on the basis of his prior conviction and time served. He is still on parole.
Click to expand...

Think you may be confusing him with someone else as the person in that link has an in home firearms license and has no convictions. Did you not read it?

From my link:
Plaintiff Robert Nash is an ordinary, law-abiding citizen of New York who wishes to carry a firearm outside the home for the purpose of self-defense. He has passed all required background checks and met every other qualification imposed by New York on the eligibility for a license to carry a firearm in the public for self-defense---
.
.
.
Mr. Nash does, however, possess all of the qualifications necessary to obtain a Handgun Carry License that are enumerated in N.Y. PENAL LAW 400.00(1). For example, he is over 21 years of age, he has not be convicted of any felony or other serious offense, and he is not addicted to controlled substances or mentally infirm. He has also passed all required background checks.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you would like to try again?
 
OldFatGuy said:
Wrong again.

BTW, I am a licensed concealed carrier and I do carry.
Click to expand...

So? I'm giving you legal documentation here. Your personal anecdotes mean nothing to me. Anyone can be a trillionaire on the internetz.
 
Xelor said:
Nobody has a problem with one's lawful defensive use of a firearm.
Click to expand...

Nobody? That would be great if it were so. From my personal experience, however, having read the comments in this sub, I have concluded that there are more that a few who just don't want any firearms in any civilian hands. A few will say it outright; and quite a few others will spout logic which easily belies their true intentions.

People have a problem with one's unlawful offensive use of a firearm.
Click to expand...

I consider myself a charter member of this group of people!

As to devices and systems that can be used defensively, retaliatorilly and/or deterrently, personal firearms are retaliatory/offensive and may, under certain conditions, accord one a deterrent capability, but rarely, if ever, are they defensive devices.

I think also that too many people conflate retaliation/offense and defense with deterrence.
Click to expand...

That could be. One wonders just how many ascribe to the nuances of the definitions you have laid out....

Aside:It's probably worth nothing that just as beasts are able to suss their odds of success (risk of incurring self-harm/failure) against an opponent, so to can humans. If one wants to deter would-be assailants, get fit.
Click to expand...

No argument; being fit and staying alert are widely seen as effective deterrences.

I think that were we to restructure our society so that matters of personal aggression operated using the constructs and tools with which "Mother Nature" imbued us all -- a being's natural physicality that communicates "find a different mark" and the brains that allow one to accurately receive that message -- there'd be a lot less interpersonal violence, injury and death. I know that's a hard thing to achieve, but it's not impossible to achieve it.
Click to expand...

Maybe. Just because your vision is unlikely doesn't make it unworthy.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Think you may be confusing him with someone else as the person in that link has an in home firearms license and has no convictions. Did you not read it?

From my link:


Perhaps you would like to try again?
Click to expand...

I read it. He lied, again. Perhaps you need to learn the players. His attorney, a member of the firm representing him is his brother-in-law, facing suspension in another matter, something about harvesting trees on someone else's land. Both are in the middle of a personal feud with the Town Justice, an unusual position in the nation, common in upstate NY. A judge who is elected and who does not have to first be an attorney. This story has legs and a history, it has nothing to do with gun controls and even less to do with law, a long term multigenerational family feud. :) If there had been some shooting between the feuding parties it could make for a TV movie or miniseries, but as is, it is too boring. A bit comical, but still boring.
 
Kal'Stang said:
So? I'm giving you legal documentation here. Your personal anecdotes mean nothing to me. Anyone can be a trillionaire on the internetz.
Click to expand...

That's not an anecdote. It's a statement of fact, and you should understand it means I do not support new gun control laws.
 
Cameron said:
Does anybody really think NYC would be safer if everyone who could pass a background check had a gun?

I personally think that the presence of guns, much like nuclear weapons in national relations, just ups the stakes for conflicts and makes it more dangerous to say something or confront people who are being abusive. Even if you have a gun, are you going to confront the person who you see littering on the subway tracks or taking a pregnant lady's seat if they have a gun too?

Not to mention every police encounter would probably become a self-defense shooting.
Click to expand...

Yes, I do believe NY would be safer.
 
Ikari said:
NYC would be a safer place if everyone there weren't huge assholes.
Click to expand...

Hey take that back ya pot smoking, thin air breathing, slacker.

signed,

pissed off, asshole New Yorker.
 
OldFatGuy said:
Nash is a convicted violent felon who served 8 years at Attica. This is his latest attempt to file a civil case for obtaining a permit. It is not ongoing litigation, it is a Lis Pendens, notice of action. All 7 of his previous attempts were denied hearings on the basis of his prior conviction and time served. He is still on parole.
Click to expand...

I lived in the city and now live in Suffolk. I had a premises permit in the city and a "sportsman" permit in Suffolk. As far as I know both jurisdictions, with respect to CCW are may issue. The following is from the SCPD's information brochure on pistol licensing, dated January 2014:

(6) CARRY – Full carry license for the purpose of self-protection. If you are seeking a SELF-PROTECTION endorsement, you will be required to show
“proper cause.” Proper cause is determined by a review of all relevant information. You must show you are exposed to extraordinary personal
danger documented by proof of threat(s) to life or safety. The Police Commissioner and/or his designee will consider all evidence,
chiefly police records, when making a determination whether proper cause exists. It should be noted, the mere fact you have been the victim of a crime or
reside or are employed in a “high crime area” does not establish “proper cause” for the issuance of such a carry license.
8
If a SELF-PROTECTION endorsement is approved, the Suffolk County Police Pistol Licensing Bureau may withdraw the classification at any time if it finds
proper cause no longer exists. Proper cause must be demonstrated each time the license is renewed and at any time when requested by Licensing Bureau
personnel. If proper cause is no longer proven, the license will be modified to reflect a different classification.
Click to expand...

That sounds an awful lot like "may issue" to me.
 
OldFatGuy said:
I read it. He lied, again. Perhaps you need to learn the players. His attorney, a member of the firm representing him is his brother-in-law, facing suspension in another matter, something about harvesting trees on someone else's land. Both are in the middle of a personal feud with the Town Justice, an unusual position in the nation, common in upstate NY. A judge who is elected and who does not have to first be an attorney. This story has legs and a history, it has nothing to do with gun controls and even less to do with law, a long term multigenerational family feud. :) If there had been some shooting between the feuding parties it could make for a TV movie or miniseries, but as is, it is too boring. A bit comical, but still boring.
Click to expand...

So tired of arguing this case. Here's more evidence that NY is a may issue state.

Here's a case that has been decided already.

Kachalsky v. Cacace

To establish proper cause to obtain a license without any restrictions—the full-carry license that Plaintiffs seek in this case—an applicant must “demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community or of persons engaged in the same profession.”
Click to expand...

The very essence of a "may issue" law.
 
Maccabee said:
Yes, I do believe NY would be safer.
Click to expand...

It is currently one of the safest large cities in the world....certainly the safest in the US.

You have to be kidding
 
Cameron said:
Does anybody really think NYC would be safer if everyone who could pass a background check had a gun?

I personally think that the presence of guns, much like nuclear weapons in national relations, just ups the stakes for conflicts and makes it more dangerous to say something or confront people who are being abusive. Even if you have a gun, are you going to confront the person who you see littering on the subway tracks or taking a pregnant lady's seat if they have a gun too?

Not to mention every police encounter would probably become a self-defense shooting.
Click to expand...

You've never been to Front Sight, have you. Everybody has a gun there and its very safe.
 
vegas giants said:
And what large city is like that anywhere in the world
Click to expand...

I don't know of any but I do know of some large cities that have very strict gun laws and are very dangerous cities.
 
DebateChallenge said:
I don't know of any but I do know of some large cities that have very strict gun laws and are very dangerous cities.
Click to expand...

Not in developed countries. Without rule of law any law is pointless. So we have ZERO cities that follow your theory and MANY cities that follow mine
 
vegas giants said:
Not in developed countries. Without rule of law any law is pointless. So we have ZERO cities that follow your theory and MANY cities that follow mine
Click to expand...

You mention how Manhattan is so safe with its really strict gun laws. Well it might be safe in terms of gun violence, although Im not sure about that, but that doesn't mean its safe in terms of violent crime. You might not have much of a chance of being shot in Manhattan but that's not to say you don't have a good chance of being stabbed, bludgeoned, or somehow assaulted in some form that doesn't involve shooting.
 
DebateChallenge said:
You mention how Manhattan is so safe with its really strict gun laws. Well it might be safe in terms of gun violence, although Im not sure about that, but that doesn't mean its safe in terms of violent crime. You might not have much of a chance of being shot in Manhattan but that's not to say you don't have a good chance of being stabbed, bludgeoned, or somehow assaulted in some form that doesn't involve shooting.
Click to expand...

No it is VERY safe in regards to violent crime. Probably safer than the city you live in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom