NJ Woman Brutally Murdered While Waiting for Pistol Permit to Protect Herself

Study: States with more gun laws have less gun violence
Yamiche Alcindor, USA TODAY 12:11 p.m. EST March 7, 2013
New study by Boston Children's Hospital finds that tougher laws on guns can have an effect on homicide and suicide rates

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/07/gun-violence-study-chicago/1969227/


One of the reasons why you have guns from states with lax (er) gun laws showing up in NYC crime scenes.

 

I misunderstood: I'm talking about the NRA and gunner (folk like you) rhetoric about gun law advocacy banning possession of ALL and ANY type of firearm. YOU are carrying on about SPECIFIC weapons that essentially are the next best thing to military issue weaponry. Two different venues, actually.

 

Make no mistake about it everyone knows that you and your friends have nothing short but the complete ban of all firearms on your minds, but even you know that you can't make it happen all in one go so you are trying to take them piece by piece.

We see you and what you are doing, and you will fail.

Want proof? Hear it from the horses mouth.

[video=youtube;ev6CDSo6Oio]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev6CDSo6Oio[/video]

 

And it was a ban for THAT ONE PARTICULAR ASSAULT WEAPONS....all one has to honestly do is the research: http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Feinstein-assault-weapons-ban-defeated-4443319.php

And NO, it's not generalized. Do your own homework to read the bill instead of relying on these out-of-context excerpts by gun manufacturer flunkies. Make no mistake, no one is buying your 3rd rate propaganda.

 

Diane Feinstein came out and publicly said "If I could've gotten, 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for and outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn 'em all in, I would've done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." In that video.

Not "one particular" like you're saying. Either you are lying, or you simply didn't know.

 

Now you're just being stubborn to the point of insipidness....as when one reads the article where you can clearly see that she was referring to ASSAULT WEAPONS and NOT guns in general.

Clearly, you're not interested in an honest debate. Unless you can do better than parrot the former, I'd say we're done here.

 

Yet a very small amount of murders are committed with assault rifle looking guns. An "assault rifle" ban solves nothing and is just an incremental step towards eliminating all gun rights. I've yet to see a graboid state where their stopping point would be when it comes to the peoples' gun rights. They take what they can whenever they can and they have no intention of stopping.

 

Nope.

They are not military issue. The "next best thing" doesn't have any value as the military does not issue semi-automatic rifles over automatic rifles for general issue.

 

What is an "assault weapon"? Let's not pretend that the phrase has any single definition.

The AWB II introduced after Sandy Hook moved the feature test from two to one, a detachable magazine being one of the features. Meaning that every pistol would have been banned. Most semi-automatic rifles would have been banned. Many shotguns would have been banned.

Cut the bull(*)(*)(*)(*) and stop pretending like a ban on specific features does not result in a drastic prohibition on many, many, many firearms.

 

Your pants, they are on fire.

 

Doesn't it strike you funny that the scary looking rifles are the ones that our government would like to ban?

We average under 300 murders per year with all rifles, not just the scary ones.
Only 300 out of the 12,000 annual murders.

300 vs 6,000

Why do you think they go after a weapon used so few times, in comparison to a Handgun that is used in about 6,000 murders on the average?

If lawmakers are truly interested in making a dent in the firearm murder stats, then why aren't they targeting the firearm that is used the most, especially when there is such a huge difference in the numbers?

Could it be that the mountain to climb to go after handguns is just too steep?

Maybe handguns are just too popular and accepted in the US, that an outright ban is just not going to happen anytime soon?

Maybe by trying to get uninformed Americans to believe that the scary looking rifle is indeed a military rifle like our soldiers have, is a strategy by our government, (with a complicit media).
A strategy that paints this rifle as an "assault weapon" capable of doing more destruction than grampas hunting rifle. We all know that's not true, and no soldier would go to combat with a semi auto ar15.

Scary looking rifles are easier to ban than handguns. It's a more simple sell to public.

So of course they want them all to disappear, but they only try to take what the think they can get.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/u...able_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2009-2013.xls

 

Jeez slick you just blow past the relevant parts don't you. You said (I'll put it in quotes and type real slow so you get the gist)

You don't follow your own discussions too close eh slick? I replied and you failed to provide proof that the opposite wasn't true...another comprehension problem slick?

Now onto this quite silly and emotional response regarding your consistent and delusional parroting, read this.
http://americangunfacts.com/

Your mistake is relying on a tried and untrue anti-gunner oft repeated and oft refuted Boston children's hospital study. You should come into the present Ferr. Here let me enlighten...er no educate....errrr no destroy the fallacy.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/08/us/study-gun-homicide/index.html

I especially like this one
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...alities-as-gun-sales-soar-gun-crimes-plummet/

Gun ownership up crime down...DOH!!!

Keep trying slick....one day you will get it right.

 

Explain the continual murder sprees in cities such as Baltimore and Chicago, both with strict firearm control laws. Explain how the passage of thirty six hours without a single reported murder, is a newsworthy event in the state of New York, if firearm control laws work.

 

Next best thing to military issue weaponry?

Do not waste anymore of our time. Your lack of factual knowledge is startling.

 

This thread is about the waiting period on buying a weapon. Nobody is trying to disarm old or handicapped people or prevent them from having guns or protecting themselves.

 

It's not about a waiting period. It's about having to apply for a permit to own a gun. A permit that you have to demonstrate a "need" in order to be approved. The state had a mandated period in which to approve or deny the permit. The state did not observe this mandate and now a woman is dead because she didn't have the opportunity to defend herself.

 

I think you are blind/oblivious to the events in the world around you---as your avatar suggests.

A good number of nations in the world disarms its citizens and do not allow commoners, old, young, handicapped or fit from having a gun on their person or in their homes to defend themselves. The UK, Japan and China are all known examples.

In the US, Chicago, Washington DC and NYC are among the places that have made it very expensive, difficult or impossible to keep and bear arms.
It has been clearly "the law of the jungle" in such places, where the old the weak are denied the best protection of a handgun and are seen as expendables.

 

Gun crimes in those countries that are disarmed are also a lot lower than they are here. The picture you paint is of ruffians waiting on every corner with guns to prey on the weak and the old and that's not what's happening in those places. Their culture plays into it and judging them by American cultural standards is not the way to do it.

You're also ignoring the fact that many support those gun laws in those places there so it's also not a case of tyrannical governments ripping guns out of the hands of it's protesting citizens. You, as an American, may cringe at the thought of a gun-free society, but it's not your society to pass judgment on or decide the laws for in the first place.

I don't think anybody is seen as "expendable". Gun control laws aren't about hanging old and weak people out to dry. You're getting your inner narrative confused with what's actually happening in the real world. I'd watch that.

But before you get too awful righteous on me, just know that I do support the 2nd amendment and I do support CCW. I just believe reasonable restrictions are fine.

 

Then it sounds like the woman's family have some recourse with the state if they did not follow the law or complete their responsibility in the mandated timeframe. But assuming this woman would definitely be alive today if she'd had that gun is unsubstantiated. There are things she could have done to protect herself even without the gun. Don't take that as me saying it's her fault she got killed because that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm only saying that buying a gun wasn't the only option available to her.

Reasonable restrictions on gun laws are fine.

 

I was just refuting your claim that "no one is going to take away your guns."

The people have been brainwashed for years by anti-gun politicians and media outlets---particualarly in places like the UK and China. If you run 99 stories that are anti-gun to one story that is pro-gun for self defence---then the masses will allow their rights to be given up.

My "Inner Narrative" allows me see beyond the confines of pre-package gun control factoids. Crime is based almost exclusively on the demographics of a given area, their culture and how effective their criminal justice system operates. Guns really are not responisble for crime worldwide. And certainly gun control laws are completely worthless in places like Mexico, Brazil and South Africa.

So, if I were a righteous person wanting a poor old Mexican lady the right to best defend herself ---then I would want her to have the right to buy at least a 9mm handgun. Certainly if she lived in place live Juarez with up to 67 murders a day. Mexican politicians do everything they can to keep guns out of the hands of honest citizens. They allow corrupt cartels to own vast territories in their nation---who have no problem obtaining assault rifles from Central America.

Socialists in places like Mexico and the UK won't admit they are restricting the rights of those who can least defend themselves---when they in fact are.

 

No one said that she would definitely be alive if she had obtained the permit. We are saying she was robbed of the opportunity to defend herself.

"Reasonable" is subjective. What one person sees as reasonable, another sees as infringement on the 2A.

 

Please show me the timeline of the trouble brewing? I haven't found that. The only hard dates I can find online have been that she applied for the pistol permit on April 21. NJ law requires it be rejected or issued in 30 days. The murder happened on June 5. The victim had checked on status of her permit two days before her death. Had the police done their job, she would have at least had a fighting chance.

 

Firearm-related offenses were low long before said countries decided it was best to prohibit firearms ownership. That in itself suggests that firearm ownership itself was not a contributing factor to the overall crime levels.

 

I've been asking for a timeline to that effect for everyone here who has claimed it was indeed the NJ legal delays that got her killed ONLY in that near 2 month time frame. But the information points to a situation that existed BEFORE the victim had put in the requests. So my questions are, how long had the abuse gone on, when did she have him kicked out, when was the order of protection put in.

Again and again, I'm not denying the bureaucratic foul-up in delays, but to date your like minded cohorts keep avoiding the FACT that the information given alludes to a situation that was a long time coming. So to base the blame on a gun permit delay is a bit disingenuous, as it leaves out some information.

 

you made a blanket statement that contradicts what the article directly dealt with. So instead of just conceding the point, you blow a whole lot of smoke to support your supposition and conjecture as fact.

Bottom line: the attempt to ban assault weapons is based on the FACT that the primary reason for assault weapons is the rapid deployment of bullets to kill more people in a short period of time.

Here's what Feinstein's bill actually contained and why:

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons-ban-summary

And here's the reason for banning assault weapons:


http://www.businessinsider.com/assault-weapons-ban-chart-2013-2