Shooting at Pathmark in Old Bridge, NJ

[Random Hero]

Source: http://gma.yahoo.com/jersey-shoppin...hree-dead-110051012--abc-news-topstories.html

News 12 is saying that the shooter was an ex-employee.

This scares the shit out of me, I live about twenty minutes south of Old Bridge.

 

[Vencu]

Get training with a handgun, find one that suits you, then apply for a Concealed Handgun License/Concealed Carry Weapon Permit. Don't be the victim. Be the solution.

Shootings rarely happen in states/areas that allow people to carry a concealed firearm because the perpetrator knows there is a good chance someone will shoot back.

EDIT: Oh, wait... never mind. According to this article, the great state of New Jersey wants you to be a victim.

http://www.ehow.com/how_2064612_get-permit-carry-concealed-weapon.html

Read #2. Only present or former police officers or people with an "urgent need for self-protection" can get one. I wonder if the guy who had that law passed has ever been robbed at gunpoint or shot at indiscriminately by a raving lunatic. Probably not. If you're a psychic and you know there will be a "urgent need for self-protection" in your future, I suppose you could apply. Last time I checked, people usually don't wake up knowing when something bad will happen to them, though. Go New Jersey!

 

[jpchewy01]

Get training with a handgun, find one that suits you, then apply for a Concealed Handgun License/Concealed Carry Weapon Permit. Don't be the victim. Be the solution.

Shootings rarely happen in states/areas that allow people to carry a concealed firearm because the perpetrator knows there is a good chance someone will shoot back.

EDIT: Oh, wait... never mind. According to this article, the great state of New Jersey wants you to be a victim.

http://www.ehow.com/how_2064612_get-permit-carry-concealed-weapon.html

Read #2. Only present or former police officers or people with an "urgent need for self-protection" can get one. I wonder if the guy who had that law passed has ever been robbed at gunpoint or shot at indiscriminately by a raving lunatic. Probably not. If you're a psychic and you know there will be a "urgent need for self-protection" in your future, I suppose you could apply. Last time I checked, people usually don't wake up knowing when something bad will happen to them, though. Go New Jersey!

You're joking right?

 

[GABA]

Shootings rarely happen in states/areas that allow people to carry a concealed firearm because the perpetrator knows there is a good chance someone will shoot back.

Not really. Gun violence has increased drastically in our city since that law was passed.

 

[Horizon]

You're joking right?

I would advise debating with him instead like GABA is.

Otherwise, you might as well escalate things.

 

[Shiuzu]

Cmon Vencu. I enjoy joking around but let's keep the jokes to a minimum. Keep making funnies like that going someone might think you're serious.

 

[Matt]

Guns always help keep crime down.

 

[BLADE]

Get training with a handgun, find one that suits you, then apply for a Concealed Handgun License/Concealed Carry Weapon Permit. Don't be the victim. Be the solution.

While I do love the morally awesome stance of blaming the victims for not being Rambo, there's actually very little evidence that gun ownership deters crime. The standby study by Lott inter alia has been very much weakened by the passage of time and by the usage of greater statistical stringency.

Shootings rarely happen in states/areas that allow people to carry a concealed firearm because the perpetrator knows there is a good chance someone will shoot back.

So why does Louisiana, for example, have a much higher murder rate than say... New Jersey? See, because I am intellectually honest I will also note that there are states with relatively liberal gun control laws that also happen to have very low murder rates (like my native Colorado.) What does this mean? That gun control is empirically a far more fraught issue than your little post would suggest.

EDIT: Oh, wait... never mind. According to this article, the great state of New Jersey wants you to be a victim.

http://www.ehow.com/how_2064612_get-permit-carry-concealed-weapon.html

Read #2. Only present or former police officers or people with an "urgent need for self-protection" can get one. I wonder if the guy who had that law passed has ever been robbed at gunpoint or shot at indiscriminately by a raving lunatic. Probably not. If you're a psychic and you know there will be a "urgent need for self-protection" in your future, I suppose you could apply. Last time I checked, people usually don't wake up knowing when something bad will happen to them, though. Go New Jersey!

Hey, if we're going with simplistic deterrence logic, we should also all start carrying around body armor and tactical gear. Levitt and Donohue have noted this as well.

I do love how your version of the world assumes that there are not even any sensible solutions to the question of the mentally ill being able to get firearms (like better psych checks or structurally better solutions to asylums and internment.) Ghoulish and reducing a complex issue to utter simplicity. And I say that as someone for generally liberal gun rights.

 

[Solaris]

Source: http://gma.yahoo.com/jersey-shoppin...hree-dead-110051012--abc-news-topstories.html

News 12 is saying that the shooter was an ex-employee.

This scares the shit out of me, I live about twenty minutes south of Old Bridge.

I take it moving out of New Jersey isn't an option?

Guns don't deter crime, but neither do they encourage it. We can sit here and throw links at each other to back up both positions (my personal favorite is the skyrocketing rate of violence in the UK), but that's simply being intellectually dishonest. If there is no apparent correlation between gun control and crime rates (as there are places with and without guns that have high crime rates, and places with and without guns that have low crime rates), then gun control is not as major a factor in crime rates as, say, anything else.

What a weapon does do is discourage someone from committing a violent crime on the person with the weapon, and equalizes out physical advantages that, say, a burly young man might have over a little old lady. You want to reduce crime, look somewhere else. You want to protect yourself, get a weapon and learn how to use it.

 

[BLADE]

I take it moving out of New Jersey isn't an option?

Guns don't deter crime, but neither do they encourage it. We can sit here and throw links at each other to back up both positions (my personal favorite is the skyrocketing rate of violence in the UK), but that's simply being intellectually dishonest. If there is no apparent correlation between gun control and crime rates (as there are places with and without guns that have high crime rates, and places with and without guns that have low crime rates), then gun control is not as major a factor in crime rates as, say, anything else.

You're mostly right, though one thing that should be noted in the US is that there has been a general effect found that gun control effects (like most policies in this country) are localized. That is, once a state passes a given set of gun restrictions or gun liberalizations there are (statistically weak) spillover effects. Suburban areas tends to experience a reduction in crime with gun liberalization and urban areas an increase. The effects are slight and I tend to think our gun problems stem more with poverty, the criminal justice system, and our mental health system.

But agreed.

What a weapon does do is discourage someone from committing a violent crime on the person with the weapon, and equalizes out physical advantages that, say, a burly young man might have over a little old lady. You want to reduce crime, look somewhere else. You want to protect yourself, get a weapon and learn how to use it.

It should be noted that even this isn't really statistically significant or true. Having a gun in these types of situations is statistically and anecdotally a wash. I would say that generally speaking there is a small benefit outside the home (as per Lott, etc.) and a small detriment inside the home. I have a hunting rifle and a CCH as well as a few handguns, etc. in a locker, but I don't see any need to walk around with one, nor have I (after much thinking) decided that having a gun in the home is the right solution.

With that being said, there are sensible measures with regards to clip size, lethality, mental health checks and mandatory training (you should know how to use your weapon if you're going to carry one) that most Americans could get behind, IMHO.

 

[Shiuzu]

-snip-

Are you allergic to consistency? In your post you both say that guns don't help encourage crime of deter it. Then you also say that if you own a gun it'll give someone an advantage over criminals. And this isn't solely about how guns affect the world around us. That's a part of it, but its also bigger. It's the fact of how easily people can get these weapons and hurt someone.

Some people on here have a great talent for summarizing large idea topics in a sentence and a half.

 

[BLADE]

To be fair to Solaris, statistically and empirically speaking, there is a difference between aggregate effects and marginal personal effects though I would say in both cases, the case for carrying and not carrying a gun is a wash. It ultimately comes down to personal choice.

 

[TweedPawn]

While I do love the morally awesome stance of blaming the victims for not being Rambo, there's actually very little evidence that gun ownership deters crime. The standby study by Lott inter alia has been very much weakened by the passage of time and by the usage of greater statistical


So why does Louisiana, for example, have a much higher murder rate than say... New Jersey? See, because I am intellectually honest I will also note that there are states with relatively liberal gun control laws that also happen to have very low murder rates (like my native Colorado.) What does this mean? That gun control is empirically a far more fraught issue than your little post would suggest.



Hey, if we're going with simplistic deterrence logic, we should also all start carrying around body armor and tactical gear.

I do love how your version of the world assumes that there are not even any sensible solutions to the question of the mentally ill being able to get firearms (like better psych checks or structurally better solutions to asylums and internment.) This isn't just being a close-minded asshole. This is being a total ghoul to try and push forth a simplistic solution to a complex issue.

I'm a native from Louisiana and I lived in/near the New Orleans area for about 5-7 years. I might be able to point a few things that will either support some points being made or complicate things more. I'm quoting Pros as a way of linking why my post is relevant:

One of the big reasons we have a high murder rate is a number of complicated reasons I've stated before on the forums. There is a serious lack of support programs for people in low-income areas. Especially in places like New Orleans where every program was literally swept away by Katrina and has yet to return to pre-storm levels.

Our police force is just terrible. Like, murder someone and then try to cover it up terrible: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danziger_Bridge_shootings
They are known for using excessive force and they have harassed citizens. I remember being pulled over for three traffic violations, two which actually didn't exist. Until I went up into the DA's office and proved that there was no state/city law concerning the "violations", they had fully expected me to pay for these fraudulent fines. I learned not to trust police. In the new place that I live, I've slowly come to believe that Officers are actually interested in my safety and not a paycheck.

Much of the violence that occurs is related to gun violence in New Orleans is usually in the poorest areas and it is often a killing in retaliation to a previous murder. Usually, that initial murder started because of something completely foolish. Would gun laws have prevented it? Hard to say. These murders are not really gang-related. They occur in open spaces and even within crowds of people. "Snitching" is a HUGE no-no. The local population distrusts the police and they fear retaliation if they "turn someone in". Even if there were strict gun laws, the laws would be useless if the population is in distrust of the Police and its fellow citizen.

When I still lived there, it felt that there were no gun laws. If there were, it certainly didn't stop anyone from buying and carrying one around like it was a wallet. Most citizens have a gun, but outside of New Orleans it's just hunting rifles and maybe a pistol. The hunting rifles are usually kept locked in a gun case or a closet and I have never known anyone injured in gun violence outside of New Orleans.

I now live in a different state that is just as liberal about gun ownership as Louisiana and it is VERY different. Everyone trusts the police. It's considerably much safer here. Everyone is very open about what little crime occurs here. I can actually walk outside by myself. I'm not careless, I walk during the day when everyone else is outside.

So, that's my input on that situation. Honestly, I don't see any change in gun laws having an affect in New Orleans. Something else needs to happen.

 

[BLADE]

I happen to think poverty, etc. are more determinative too. And it's not even a state-by-state basis. It often is very localized. I grew up in the Sun Valley area of Denver which was very poor and rather violent. I now live in a professional and relatively gentrified suburb of Washington Park. The differences are fairly stark. With that being said there are probably relatively significant marginal effects that smart gun liberalization and gun control laws could have in a positive manner.

That's why I mentioned a comparison between Colorado and Louisiana which have similarly liberal gun laws as being misleading. Thanks for the confirming data, Tweed.

 

[Solaris]

It should be noted that even this isn't really statistically significant or true. Having a gun in these types of situations is statistically and anecdotally a wash. I would say that generally speaking there is a small benefit outside the home (as per Lott, etc.) and a small detriment inside the home. I have a hunting rifle and a CCH as well as a few handguns, etc. in a locker, but I don't see any need to walk around with one, nor have I (after much thinking) decided that having a gun in the home is the right solution.

Nor do I own a firearm - I've long since grown tired of shooting 'em, and I've gotten to shoot the really fun ones. Avoiding a situation is by far better than resolving it with a boomstick, and most any situations I can't avoid I can solve with a less lethal weapon. I happen to be fond of a tire iron, if only for the funny looks I get.
Not that I get into a lot of situations stateside. Like I said, avoiding them is the best option.

While I respect your decision, sometimes having a firearm is the best solution. For example, my stepmother is a small woman and lives in an area where there are a lot of break-ins. These break-ins, if they happen when the homeowners are present, tend to end in violence. I much prefer her to have the means to discourage these mooks, and few things are quite so discouraging as a laser sight attached to a pistol oriented at the groin. The only people in the house are my father and stepmother; all of us kids are grown and don't show up unannounced.

I don't trust less-than-lethal munitions. I've seen guys take Mace and pepper spray like they liked it and a stun gun (while not a bad option) can too easily go wrong - especially with a lot of the sissy stun guns available and the close quarters environment of a home defense situation. Less-than-lethals are best against unarmed, (mostly) sober opponents. In the area my parents live, most of the break-ins are armed, stoned, or both.

With that being said, there are sensible measures with regards to clip size, lethality, mental health checks and mandatory training (you should know how to use your weapon if you're going to carry one) that most Americans could get behind, IMHO.

I don't know that restrictions on magazine sizes and lethality are going to be of much use. What do you have in mind?

Certainly getting the right tool for the job is of major importance. For nearly any self-defense purpose I can think of, a hollow-point round is the way to go. They do terrible things to the target and don't over-penetrate like a full-metal jacket round will. Barring that, a smaller-gauge shotgun (preferably pump-action - that distinctive sound alone could discourage an intruder, if ya ask me) has similar effects.
Getting a huge-caliber weapon is just stupid. That bullet will go through the target at close range, through the wall behind him, and just keep on going. I've never understood why police and military are restricted from using hollow-point rounds. I know that they cause suffering and death - which is kind of the point in shooting someone, you're trying to kill them. To compensate for the reduced killpower of the rounds we use, we have to get big bullets - which have the problem I just mentioned, of over-penetration.

Part of the training needs to be target discipline and positive identification. We've all heard stories of Rambo wannabes who've gone off half-cocked and wound up shooting their teenager as he tries to sneak in late. If a bunch of chuckle-****s running around a foreign country can avoid engaging non-combatants (with a few unfortunate exceptions), then a homeowner can likewise avoid engaging non-combatants and learn how to use the process of escalation of force to defuse a situation before lethal force gets necessary. I'd much rather pay for the broken window after having run off a couple of intruders than have to clean them out of the upholstery and go through the legal ramifications of having killed someone, to say nothing of the psychological effects.

 

[BLADE]

Nor do I own a firearm - I've long since grown tired of shooting 'em, and I've gotten to shoot the really fun ones. Avoiding a situation is by far better than resolving it with a boomstick, and most any situations I can't avoid I can solve with a less lethal weapon.

Agreed.

*Snips*

Like I said, that was my personal decision. I can't speak for everyone. The data seems to suggest that on balance there's a marginal detriment to having a gun in a house. But that still leaves a lot of people who can have it. My wife is also a very small person. She's about 5'3 and weighs maybe all of 115 pounds. She's also pregnant. There's always a small part of me when one of us is working late or has to leave the house that doesn't like the idea of her not having protection but we've come to the conclusion that given our beliefs as well as our situation (we live in a very safe suburb) there's no reason for us to have a gun at the house.

Besides. We have one 100 pound dog who while mellow with most people does not take kindly to uninvited strangers. That makes things easier.

I don't trust less-than-lethal munitions. I've seen guys take Mace and pepper spray like they liked it and a stun gun (while not a bad option) can too easily go wrong - especially with a lot of the sissy stun guns available and the close quarters environment of a home defense situation. Less-than-lethals are best against unarmed, (mostly) sober opponents. In the area my parents live, most of the break-ins are armed, stoned, or both.

Tasers are interesting. I've had some tested on me, and despite being a big guy (I'm 6'3'') I can tell you that the more potent ones really really hurt. On some settings they can actually kill a person. With that being said, my wife carries around a pretty powerful one as well as mace. Women in general have their lives somewhat policed by the prospect of violence, far more so than men do, which is a shame. Hopefully she'll never be in a situation she has to use it.

Some basic training self-defense is always good. I've practiced Tae Kwon Do for years. My wife karate. People shouldn't exaggerate its utility; there's an always an element of added danger and randomness to any close-quarters engagement, but it is handy.

I don't know that restrictions on magazine sizes and lethality are going to be of much use. What do you have in mind?

Higher caliber restrictions and some restrictions on access to automatics, etc. For my money, these would have only marginal effects, but they would be positive effects and entail policies that most Americans would support.

*Snips*

I don't disagree. Rights entail commensurate responsibilities. Yes the Constitution protects your right to carry a gun but fellow citizens deserve to live in a world where your potential irresponsibility is not harming them.

 

[jpchewy01]

Tasers are interesting. I've had some tested on me, and despite being a big guy (I'm 6'3'') I can tell you that the more potent ones really really hurt.

Why?

 

[BLADE]

Why?

I was helping with a seminar on non-lethal deterrents. I'm personally a pacifist so even those were an eye-opening experience for me, considering how often lethal they can be and how eager police are (sometimes understandably) to use them.

 

[Solaris]

Besides. We have one 100 pound dog who while mellow with most people does not take kindly to uninvited strangers. That makes things easier.

Best home defense known to man. Seriously - I've seen a twenty-pound schnauzer run off an intruder. She was very proud of herself that day.

Tasers are interesting. I've had some tested on me, and despite being a big guy (I'm 6'3'') I can tell you that the more potent ones really really hurt. On some settings they can actually kill a person. With that being said, my wife carries around a pretty powerful one as well as mace. Women in general have their lives somewhat policed by the prospect of violence, far more so than men do, which is a shame. Hopefully she'll never be in a situation she has to use it.

Strangely, that's one of my problems with the tasers. Though I don't specifically have a problem with the fact that they can kill, I do have a problem with the fact that they can kill accidentally.

Some basic training self-defense is always good. I've practiced Tae Kwon Do for years. My wife karate. People shouldn't exaggerate its utility; there's an always an element of added danger and randomness to any close-quarters engagement, but it is handy.

Agreed. One of the best lessons I've learned from self-defense training is the ability to scare the crap out of someone contemplating attacking me. If you convince him you are not to be messed with, there is no fight.

Higher caliber restrictions and some restrictions on access to automatics, etc. For my money, these would have only marginal effects, but they would be positive effects and entail policies that most Americans would support.

I'm okay with that so long as the restrictions aren't so much the gun owner needing to prove he needs to own it so much as it is proving he can be responsible with it (IE: Not shoot up the corner store). Requiring a license to own certain kinds of firearms is okay (not precisely my ideal, but I'm willing to compromise), so long as any responsible adult with a clean record could get access to them with enough diligence.
I'm torn on gun registration. On the one hand, it provides police a method to track firearms, which has obvious benefits. On the other hand, it provides police a method to track firearms. Don't get me wrong, I'm not concerned about the government going psychotic any time in the next twenty years or so (or ever, really), but... I'm pretty sure they said the same thing in Germany, about 1920 or so.
EDIT: Yeah, I know how paranoid and crazy that sounds. Honest, I don't mean it like that.

I don't disagree. Rights entail commensurate responsibilities. Yes the Constitution protects your right to carry a gun but fellow citizens deserve to live in a world where your potential irresponsibility is not harming the.

That's precisely my thoughts on it.