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

Nice try toodles, but as usual your sources just cherry pick what they like and ignore what they don't.

To date YOU OR YOUR COHORTS HAVE NOT GIVEN ME A TIME LINE AS TO WHEN THIS WOMAN REALIZED THE GUY WAS DANGEROUS, HOW LONG SHE ENDURED, WHEN DID SHE PUT IN FOR DIVORCE OR RESTRAINING, ETC., ETC. I'm not saying the bureaucratic delays were wrong, but I'm saying that you can't blame them solely for her death.

As for the rest of your gunner mantras here's some info I put to one of your buddies:


And here's something else for you to chew on while you parse through your mantras. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...n-deaths-to-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015

- - - Updated - - -

No one said that gun laws eliminated murder, genius. The FACTS point to LESSER gun violence in states that have better laws than those without. Deal with it.

- - - Updated - - -

translation: Facts trump gunner BS.

 

That's a crock. These so called assault rifles are semi auto. Any semi auto firearm shoots at the exact same speed. One trigger pull for each projectile expelled. Face it, they chose this gun because banning it is an easier sell to the public than the guns that are used in most shootings.

Again, 300 vs 6000

 

What liberal BS. Lets look at CITIES within states. Cities that are dominated by Democrats and inhabited by ethnic groups that support Democratic politics. Here's a hint genius. It's not Republicans, NRA members, Tea Party associates who commit gun crimes. It's people of your political ilk that commit gun crimes. No wonder liberalism is a mental illness.

 

Good Lord pumpkin if that ain't the pot calling the kettle black....I still have tears in my eyes from laughing so hard at your sources which have been debunked here on this very forum over and over.

There ya go...I was waiting for the shift in the goal post... The discussion has always been on being denied the chance to have an equalizer not a time line...Here is your original goal post "and the statement that delays in obtaining her weapon resulted in her death is supposition and conjecture at best. " Above my post is your new goal post. All I can say is WOW you can't make moving a goal post more obvious pumpkin pooter..

Whoops

LOL Bloomberg...Nuff Said! Nothing to see here folks move along...An anti-gun nutter quoting a liar who is even losing face with other anti-gun nutters.

 

And yet cities such as the district of columbia and Chicago, have each held the title of "murder capital for the united states" despite strict laws regulating the ownership and possession of firearms. The state of California, as stated by the Violence Policy Center, has far more drive by shootings than any other state.

Then prove to everyone how the semi-automatic AR-15 rifle, is almost as good as the fully-automatic M16, and substitutes for it adequately enough.

If you are going to introduce a nonsensical argument, you will be called out on it, and demanded to prove your argument.

 

It does not matter what the timeline was. The day she felt the need to be armed is the day she should have been armed.

 

Then I guess you've never had anyone that hates you that would want you dead. This woman was in fear for her life from this ex-boyfriend. So, yes, I agree with you, I would hate to be in her situation, but I wouldn't call it paranoid.

 

The recent church shooting, the shooter shot 9 people in seconds....... no need for an AR15...used a handgun that shoots at the same rate as a scary rifle.

 

My 9mm pistol with a 32 rd magazine is more deadly in close quarters than the Garland TX terrorist's Keltec Sub2000 rifle. The guy in Charleston reloaded his pistol 5 times to kill 9 people. Your witch hunt for scary looking rifles that very few use for crime is kind of useless.

 

Obama has already spoken publicly and politicized this tragedy to push his gun control agenda. I'm sure he is bummed out that this shooting wasn't carried out by an AR15 wielding criminal that bought it at a "gun show".

 

Stop and think: WHEN did she feel the need to be armed? Was it just that month prior to the shooting? That is my question.

 

And if that POS had an AR15, HE WOULD HAVE KILLED MORE PEOPLE IN THAT SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. Thanks for making my point (while not having the courage to concede to the others in the previous post).

- - - Updated - - -

Assuming what you say is verified, if he had an AR15, he would have KILLED MORE PEOPLE IN THAT TIME PERIOD. Get it now? Thanks for proving my point.

 

the only mental illness here is your willful ignorance and right wing revisionism.....Try PROVING what you blather here with documented, verified FACTS. I'll wait.

 

As I understand it he killed everybody in the room except for 2. He spared 1 and a 5 year old obeyed her grandmother and "played dead". How would an AR15 make a difference?

How many black people did he pass on his way to a "gun free zone"?

New Jersey is pretty much a "gun free zone". I'm seeing a pattern here.

 

As with most people I'm sure it was before she petitioned for a permit. Not sure what your question has to do with her plight.

 

Ahh, spoken like the true intellectually impotent and willfully ignorant recipient of NRA propaganda. See kid, it's like this: I READ what others post to better understand and critique whether I like the source or not. Folk like you just blow smoke as if that's an adequate defense of your beliefs. Hint: it's not...grade school kid can do what you just did here. Schools out, kid....grow up and deal.

 

If you don't have the stones to concede a point, then spare me the usual gunner side tracks and smoke screens, because the Feinstein bill is SPECIFIC about what was proposed to be banned. Here's how I explained it to Chuck. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=411762&p=1065106748#post1065106748 Deal with it.

 

So in your mind, those 2 along with 2 others that would have been dead if he had an AR15 and didn't have to reload isn't much of a difference, ehh? There were 13 people in the church at the time of the shooting. Man, you need to get your priorities regarding human life straight.

- - - Updated - - -

you're guessing. My point is HOW LONG DID THIS WOMAN WAIT BEFORE PUTTING IN FOR THAT PERMIT. How long was this guy a viable threat to her, before she decided to leave and get a order against him? to blame the delay as the sole cause of her death is disingenuous at best.

 

I repeat.. Both the handgun and the AR15 shoot one round for each trigger pull. The exact same rate of fire. Quit propelling the lie that that the AR shoots at a faster rate of fire.

 

I'll tell you how long she waited before she applied for the permit....... She waited until she decided she needed one. Quit blaming the victim.

 

Ultimately why does it matter what the timeline was?

And contrary to your statement, there was no shooting. It was a stabbing.

 

Specifically how would that be the case when both firearms are capable of discharging rounds at equal rates?

 

You are blatantly ignorant of what amounts to facts.

During the time the city of Chicago maintained an absolute ban on the ownership of handguns, they were responsible for the majority of murders for the entire state of Illinois, despite being a mere city. Nearly every murder committed was committed with a handgun. No other city within the entire state of Illinois experienced a murder rate anywhere near what the city of Chicago experienced.

Explain why this is the case.

So then what you are proposing, is a litmus test that will serve to prohibit the ownership of firearms, based on an arbitrarily determined ratio of rounds discharged to seconds of times passed. In other words, if a person can fire it quickly, it is too dangerous for the general public to own.

Break it down for those of us that do not support your position. What is the correct ratio of rounds being discharged, to seconds of time passed, that would classify a firearm as suitable for civilian ownership.

Yet again, you assume far too much. Not once have I ever stated that I support firearms ownership. Do not assume that because I argue in favor of a particular position, that I am in favor of it. I will argue from whatever position I believe will yield the truth, and genuine facts during debate.

From your own citation:

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

At any time, when talk of prohibition comes up, the use of the word "all" suggests a lack of specifics, and instead supports a vague standard that is easily abused by discretionary authority.

 

You've got to be kidding. Camden, Philly. Gary, East St.Louis, Chicago Birmingham, Jackson etc etc etc. All cities with large number of Democrats. It doesn't matter which state you're in you blithering nitwit.

 

Ahh youngster, spoken like a intellectually deficient and propaganda sucking recipient of the Bloomberg enema. You have been getting served what you dish and ain't smart enough to be cognizant of that fact. Your crap has been read, studied and dismissed so often you ought to feel tired of being thrown under the bus by the lies that have been exposed in your posts. I think you need a little more maturity...then come play with us grown ups, eh?