Since they require only a hunting license, rifles and shotguns may be carried and transported openly when unloaded. Otherwise, New York State law does not allow for open carrying of any firearm. Certain areas such as schools, state parks, and government offices are always off-limits, and New York does not recognize firearm permits issued in any other state, whether concealed or open carry. Albany, Columbia, Greene, Orange, Rensselaer, Rockland, Ulster, and Westchester counties all require successful completion of county-approved basic gun safety courses.
Putnam County specifically requires the NRA Basics course though police and other peace officers may be exempted. Dutchess County is the lone municipality that does not require the completion of a safety course in order to receive a pistol permit, though they are both offered and encouraged.
This does not necessarily make it easier to obtain a pistol permit in Dutchess, however. New York State is currently in the process of building a new, comprehensive database of all active pistol permits. As of January, more than a quarter-million residents had re-certified their permits. It was estimated prior to this the total number of permits could be as high as 1.
News U. Politics Joe Biden Congress Extremism. Special Projects Highline. HuffPost Personal Video Horoscopes. Follow Us. The legislators in New York and Washington are thinking about making the process of obtaining a gun even stricter.
We had four individuals who had to provide a character statement. They had to be notarized. We were fingerprinted. These are pistol permits not "gun permits", as they don't cover rifles or shotguns.
And if you knew how incredibly hard it was for a New Yorker to get one of those permits, you'd feel differently about the people who have them. This is just an open invitation to rob the homes of people NOT on the list, and I'm one of them. For now. I'm pretty sure, without looking it up, that the number of guns stolen from homes is far greater than the number of burglaries thwarted by gun totin' residents of said homes.
That's only because it's easier to burgle a home where the thief has already ascertained that the resident is not home. If they were a little bit stupider, you might see those numbers shift.
No shit, Sherlock. Unfortunately, that's not reality, but that's the only reason it doesn't happen. If people were that dumb, I'd be rich. All I'm trying to say is that it's easier to steal guns from a place where the owners aren't, than where they are, because they might just shoot the thief, and even the theives know that.
Any disagreement with that premise? It's even easier to not have guns. It was also a violation of privacy to publicize that information. You have to give them the info but one would hope it would remain with the dept.
An open invitation for thieves is right. It's an easy roadmap for burglars Imagine if some reich-wing publication put out a searchable map of every couple who applied for a marriage license where both people were the same gender, in the states where equal marriage is legal.
We'd describe that as targeting the individuals involved. Is that people will realize how many of their friends and neighbors have guns, and therefore there will be less of a stigma attached to it. I know I'll get flamed for exercising my 1st amendment rights to support the Constitution as written and interpreted by the SC. I think there should be much more regulation of gun ownership.
I am of the mind that the second amendment is very clear about the fact that "the militia" should be "well regulated"! I don't have enough posts on DU to start my own thread and I really want to put some light on this. I'm looking for related threads to get the word out.
Has anyone here thought of the possibility for a criminal to use this information to steal the weapons when the occupant wasn't home? Tough shit. Buy a gun safe. The problem of firearms being stolen from a home that the homeowner bought for defending the home is a very real one, maybe a dog would be better protection. He never worked a breakin or invasion of a dog owner ok so he's worked one, and the yorkshire terrier just wasnt a deterrent.
I have two 2 pound lab huskies. They let me know, somehow without seeing them, when someone is in our front yard. Seriously, I was afraid for him, and afraid they would take my dogs.
They were literally ready to tear him up. I love my dogs. Well, here's another one Had an extremely loveable Springer Spaniel who was in the house the whole time it was being robbed. Probably the only resistance she offered was to whine at them to pet her. When I came home and saw the door had been kicked in, she was the first thing I was worried about. They made off with a TV, my wedding rings and some jewelry, electronics, about 2K worth of stuff. But the most precious thing was safe. Utterly useless as a watch dog, but a wonderful pet!
I would like to learn more about this dangerous trend. Sounds like a great argument for either buying a better safe or for owning fewer of these expensive and coveted guns!
It would be stupid if People didn't keep their guns locked up in gun safes whether or not their address is posted. Thats interesting I thought the point of increased gun ownership was to increase safety? Having guns out there in homes is supposed to be a deterrent to crimes. Knowing which houses have guns should, according to the claims of gun afficionados, increase the safety of those homes, and decrease everyone elses safety.
Now you tell me that they make a home more attractive to the criminal element? Secondary thought: if people were securing their guns in a responsible fashion, breaking in to steal them would be a fruitless endeavor. So, if this is truely a big concern, then perhaps all those "responsible, law abiding gun owners" are not so responsible after all.
And if the assertions of most gun supporters over the past week are true, then if the law changes in such a way that it inconveniences them, they will decline to be law abiding. Which pretty much just leaves "gun owners". Sure, your average burglar and child will not be capable of breaking into it, but a professional who has targeted you can.
How to describe the feeling that it's for, when it's not for hunting or actual protection from bears, wolves, etc. Increases the value of the house as a burglary target when no one is home.
Positive control of a firearm is a big deal. The problem is this discourages registration Of guns, which is not in the community's interest. I seem to remember thirty years ago that reich wingers wanted the same "preventive" information about people with HIV. They are following the law and have done nothing wrong. It reminds me a little bit of the harassment of women going for a legal abortion, and the way people feel any behavior is fair and justified because they are 'right' on the issue.
The DUers cheering this would be screaming bloody murder if the paper was publishing the names and addresses of HIV patients, abortion seekers, or mental health patients- or any other private information. Hell, DU even has a policy forbidding doing it here. Its a shame DU has stooped to the level of RW extremists. How about school records?
How about tax returns? The gun-owners have done the legal and responsible thing to register their weapons, you want to punish them for that? How many gun-owners will now decide NOT to register their weapons? Is that the result you want? There are about million registered gun owners, you are going to need some of their votes and support if gun control legislation is going to be passed Obama got a little over 60M votes.
Now, if the target is the criminals doing most of the shooting, you may find that support. If you target legal gun owners who are following the law, you won't find that support, and nothing will be done. I don't think so. I actually think guns should be legal to posses, but I don't think it should be considered socially acceptable. I think all drugs should be legal too, but I wouldn't want to live next to a meth lab. It is public information, after all.
But I think it is the wrong thing to do. Just because you CAN harass a woman seeking an abortion, doesn't mean you should. I also think people are going a bit overboard, demonizing legal and likely responsible gun owners. They're responsible for not killing people? So is everyone else who doesn't kill people. What happens when their gun falls into the hands of someone who would use it to kill someone?
A gun is a time bomb without a clock. A lot of guns will never kill people, but they could at almost any moment. Sure, there are cases where firearms are used for things like hunting, and I'm ok with that. Handguns are made for killing people. The charade of describing someone who owns something that could be used to kill anyone at any moment as "responsible" should be done away with. We laugh when they say Obama wants to take our guns.
But it turns out they are right, if the anti-gun comments on this site are any barometer. The massacres have shown us that we need gun control - get rid of semi-automatics, close the gun show loophole, etc. I don't want a gun, but I want to be free to have one if I so desire. But I expect I will be able to acquire one without being publicly ridiculed! I think people should be free to own anything they'd like, including whatever kind of insane killing device they may want, be it an automatic rifle or a gas chamber.
Like you, I think every single gun that is manufactured and sold should be registered and accounted for. Voting is my right, but I have to register to vote. However, joining a racist group is also my right, and I wouldn't want to lose it.
However, if I were to join a racist organization, I'd hope that I would be publicly ridiculed. Just because we have the right to do something doesn't mean we shouldn't be ridiculed for it. There are many many things we have the right to do that most people won't do because doing so is reprehensible to most.
I was talking about simply owning a gun. I don't think anybody should be ridiculed for simply owning a gun. On edit - You do realize you don't have to join the NRA to own a gun, don't you? I absolutely think people should be ridiculed for owning guns or any other devices designed and manufactured for the purpose of killing human beings. Not only is there no rational reason to possess such devices but people own many things that have no logical purpose for being , they are devices which, when used properly, kill people.
That's scary as shit, and I don't think it should be regarded as being socially acceptable. I don't mind people owning guns designed and manufactured for hunting or sport, but I still think they should have those guns registered in a national database.
Who wants to use a drug whose production involves chemicals that were used as war gasses in WWI. This is why meth melts you from the inside out. Apart from that, meth heads would still use meth. Why smuggle in risky quantities of stuff you can make in a bathtub right there in the US? People already using meth would be likely to continue perhaps.
I don't see them jumping to another simpler drug. People don't kick one addiction just because another is available, and as long as that first one's around, new people will find it. See: Portugal. Also, addicts are much more likely to submit to rehab if they know they won't go to jail for it. This is also demonstrated in Portugal.
However, people are going to get high, one way or another. Having a war on drugs is going to do nothing about it. This is now how I view the debate on gun control. Trying to have some sort of "war on guns" isn't the answer.
We're not going to change the culture with laws. We need to change the culture by actually changing the culture - changing attitudes, conceptions, values. Americans are still shockingly violent. I don't feel like I've been terribly productive if I get a gun off the street that might be used to kill me, if I get beaten to death anyway. If we can move people toward non-violence, the guns become a moot issue.
In fact, they will probably fade somewhat in total numbers. The less people are motivated by hate, the fewer responding people are motivated by fear. That would really suck for the gun industry, there. Bans don't seem to bother that industry at all. My real question is what is the actual reason that people want to own guns. It's not rational, because there aren't rational reasons for owning them. That in itself is fine - most things we own aren't owned for rational reasons.
Is there a rational reason to have art on your walls? However, we can't address the number of guns that are around if we don't address why they're around. We can't get to that so long as we refuse to be self-reflective about it. Though it was seen as a "gaff" I think what Obama said in the election is true, at least in part.
People are dejected and feel that they have little control over their lives, so they cling to a few rights that they absolutely do have very strongly; religion, guns. Coca tea, not cocaine or meth. Poppy concoctions, not heroin or Oxycodone or Vicodin. Marijuana, not all those pharmaceuticals. Smoked tobacco, not some weird industrialized nico-heroin powder.
What we do to opium poppy and coca. I knew a Belgian drug activist meth user who switched over to prescribed oral amphetamines under a doctor's care and seemed to maintain for a long time.
I've also heard of studies where they are trying Adderall or is it Ritalin? Do you really think marijuana, coca, and poppies aren't being grown with chemical fertilizers and pesticides? So you think having a medical condition is comparable to owning a weapon, the express purpose of which is to injure or kill? The express purpose of having a handgun in one's home is to defend one's household, if need be.
It's all about which irrational fears a person has. Is a person going to whack an intruder on the head with their gun? No, they're going to do whatever it takes to stop an intruder, of course That's the point of having an effective weapon, rather than just a bludgeon.
0コメント