A simple question for gun rights folk.

[T. A. Gardner]

You're avoiding the question......what can this gun carrying law allow gun owners to do in their daily functions in society that they could not do before being allowed to CCW? Simple question.

This is a variant of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. You are focused on one specific aspect of this legal change without considering any others in an obvious attempt to show that the change is irrelevant and that the law as originally written was fine.

That isn't the case. While it changes nothing in your specific question, it does have a very large impact on NY CC law. It makes it far, far easier for someone to get a CC permit than before.

 

[Into the Night]

You're avoiding the question......what can this gun carrying law allow gun owners to do in their daily functions in society that they could not do before being allowed to CCW? Simple question.

RQAA.

 

[Into the Night]

I'm taking you off the ignore list in the spirit of a honest debate on this subject in this respect.

So if nothing changes in their lives, then that means that they already felt secure in whatever they were doing. So why carry a gun if you already feel secure?

He already answered that question. RQAA.

 

[Into the Night]

you'll need to be specific here......if you're talking about the OLD law, well NOW it means that the average citizen CAN carry a gun most anywhere. the NEW law, which NYS is using to thwart the Bruen decision added 2 dozen areas to their 'sensitive' list, so NOW citizens can carry fewer places without running afoul of the law.

If your intent here was to ask a question that didn't really have an answer so you could bait gun rights people in to a gotcha moment, maybe people should be adding you to their ignore list, because honest debate doesn't really seem to be your intent by 'avoiding the question' responses.

The question does have an answer, and you just answered it (yet again). He is just mindlessly asking the same question over and over even though it's already been answered. That's what RQAA means (Repetitive Question Already Answered). This happens a lot with Democrats. It's a form of stomping and screaming when they don't get their way.

 

[Into the Night]

Um, no genius...they wouldn't. Presidents are automatically a high profile target for enemy nations, kooks, disgruntled citizens and the like. This is why Presidents and their families are given a SECRET SERVICE detail for protection 24/7. The President and his family DO NOT CARRY GUNS ON THEIR PERSON.

Correct. They HIRE people that carry guns on their person!

"Officials" is a generic term....depending upon the "official", carrying a weapon is part of the job.

Irrelevant.

Police officials, law enforcement officials due to the nature of their jobs are expected to CCW.

Most police carry openly.

Doctors on the whole don't CCW,

Heh. You'd be surprised!

neither do firemen.

Some do if they are not attending a fire (bad place to carry shells).

So you need to be very specific as to what "officials" you are talking about, because average working schmoes like you and I don't fit that criteria.

Irrelevance fallacy.

Got that, bunky?

So I'll ask again, what can this gun carrying law allow gun owners to do in their daily functions in society that they could not do before being allowed to CCW? Simple question.

RQAA.

 

[Into the Night]

I took you off the ignore list in the spirit of my seeking a true debate from everyone.


Here, you're avoiding the question......what can this gun carrying law allow gun owners to do in their daily functions in society that they could not do before being allowed to CCW? Simple question.

Patronizing bullshit. RQAA.

 

[Into the Night]

No, he does what you do here....bitch about NOT being able to carry a gun, but NOT detailing what you couldn't do before that you feel that you can do now because you're carry a gun.

Paradox. Irrational. Which is it, dude?

Your boat example fails to address this, because clearly the vast majority of NYC or NYS boaters do so WITHOUT carrying a weapon.

You don't get to speak for everyone. You are not God. Omniscience fallacy.

I have NEVER read or heard of arrested during a storm scenario your purport here.

Argument of ignorance fallacy.

But assuming its true, what why would you be boating during a storm?

RQAA.

And why would the cops search you unless you were suspected of carrying contraband?

RQAA.

So please stop the dodges and diverting and just answer the question.

He already did. RQAA.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
I'm taking you off the ignore list in the spirit of a honest debate on this subject in this respect.

So if nothing changes in their lives, then that means that they already felt secure in whatever they were doing. So why carry a gun if you already feel secure?

I reject this premise.

one can do the same activities, but feel safer, and actually be safer, doing them.

It's not a "premise", but a logical, rational question.

Now here you answer the question to a degree....you FEEL safer. Doing what...everything? Because if that is indeed the case, you have a near paranoia about functioning outside of your residence. And carrying a gun with that feeling of dread is not exactly making things safer for the rest of us. Especially cops, who now have to contend with potential vigilantes as well as criminals in the general population. Here's an example of what I'm referring to; thank goodness it's not a common occurrence....yet:

https://thehill.com/changing-americ...ails-good-guy-with-a-gun-after-officer-kills/

 

[Taichiliberal]

This whole new angle you've got on "activity changes" is retarded.

Umm, YOU opened the door on that one, genius..not me. You just don't like my schooling you on how your assertion actually works in real life...and why it doesn't really answer the question. Now in another post you do answer the question and I respond. Hopefully, we can go from there without the animosity. I respond in kind, so don't start none and won't be none.

 

[Taichiliberal]

you'll need to be specific here......if you're talking about the OLD law, well NOW it means that the average citizen CAN carry a gun most anywhere. the NEW law, which NYS is using to thwart the Bruen decision added 2 dozen areas to their 'sensitive' list, so NOW citizens can carry fewer places without running afoul of the law.

If your intent here was to ask a question that didn't really have an answer so you could bait gun rights people in to a gotcha moment, maybe people should be adding you to their ignore list, because honest debate doesn't really seem to be your intent by 'avoiding the question' responses.

Repeating a dodge is no answer. You see, I am asking the question towards a new ruling that YOU endorse. In effect, the burden of proof is on YOU to explain just what carrying a gun allows you to do in society that you couldn't do before.

I'll elaborate: will carrying a gun change your recreational activities? Job activities? Commuting status/situation? Food/clothes shopping? And if so, how?

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
You're avoiding the question......what can this gun carrying law allow gun owners to do in their daily functions in society that they could not do before being allowed to CCW? Simple question.

This is a variant of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. You are focused on one specific aspect of this legal change without considering any others in an obvious attempt to show that the change is irrelevant and that the law as originally written was fine.

That isn't the case. While it changes nothing in your specific question, it does have a very large impact on NY CC law. It makes it far, far easier for someone to get a CC permit than before.

Once again you dodge a simple question. You try to characterize my question with an example that has no merit or equivalency. I'm questioning YOU on the BASIS of a new ruling that YOU ENDORSE AND AGREE WITH. You seem to think that you don't have to explain your agreement and endorsement because the SCOTUS ruling gives you what you want. That is not only illogical, but hypocritical and a bit elitist on your part.


I'll elaborate: will carrying a gun change your recreational activities? Job activities? Commuting status/situation? Food/clothes shopping? And if so, how?

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
You're avoiding the question......what can this gun carrying law allow gun owners to do in their daily functions in society that they could not do before being allowed to CCW? Simple question.

simple minded question........ask instead what it will allow people who do not yet own guns to do before the law before the law was reversed........the answer is "get legal access to a gun"......

Actually, you're giving a simple minded dodge to a question that obviously you fear for some reason.
I'll elaborate: will carrying a gun change your recreational activities? Job activities? Commuting status/situation? Food/clothes shopping? And if so, how?

Oh, and for the record....in NYC, one has to first past the criteria to own a gun...that hasn't changed, nor does this latest ruling change those requirements. This law essentially affects those who OWN a gun. Capice'

 

[Taichiliberal]

simple minded question........ask instead what it will allow people who do not yet own guns to do before the law before the law was reversed........the answer is "get legal access to a gun"......the ones who already owned guns obviously already had that access.....

I'll elaborate: will carrying a gun change your recreational activities? Job activities? Commuting status/situation? Food/clothes shopping? And if so, how?

Oh, and for the record....in NYC, one has to first past the criteria to own a gun...that hasn't changed, nor does this latest ruling change those requirements. This law essentially affects those who OWN a gun. Capice'

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Once again you dodge a simple question. You try to characterize my question with an example that has no merit or equivalency. I'm questioning YOU on the BASIS of a new ruling that YOU ENDORSE AND AGREE WITH. You seem to think that you don't have to explain your agreement and endorsement because the SCOTUS ruling gives you what you want. That is not only illogical, but hypocritical and a bit elitist on your part.


I'll elaborate: will carrying a gun change your recreational activities? Job activities? Commuting status/situation? Food/clothes shopping? And if so, how?

You make a very specific question, and one that the ruling has no effect on, while ignoring what the ruling actually changes. The answer to your question is nothing. The real change is that someone wanting a CC permit can now likely get one where before if you weren't willing or economically endowed you couldn't. That is, before, the bar was set so high that only someone connected or willing to expend considerable effort and capital could get a permit. Now, NY has to hand them out to just about anyone who requests one.

 

[Taichiliberal]

You make a very specific question, and one that the ruling has no effect on, while ignoring what the ruling actually changes. The answer to your question is nothing. The real change is that someone wanting a CC permit can now likely get one where before if you weren't willing or economically endowed you couldn't. That is, before, the bar was set so high that only someone connected or willing to expend considerable effort and capital could get a permit. Now, NY has to hand them out to just about anyone who requests one.

So sloughing throw your regurgitated smoke blowing, you (finally) give a straight answer. That the SCOTUS ruling on CCW changes NOTHING in your day to day routine.
So it's all ideology and gun manufacturers/NRA propaganda wins for you.

But you should know that one STILL has to qualify in NYC to obtain a gun....the rule change does NOT affect that, just the CCW requirements AFTER you get the initial license.

But given that, let's hope all the gunner flunkies, idiots and zealots on this site don't increase incidents like this: https://thehill.com/changing-americ...ails-good-guy-with-a-gun-after-officer-kills/

Carry on.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

So sloughing throw your regurgitated smoke blowing, you (finally) give a straight answer. That the SCOTUS ruling on CCW changes NOTHING in your day to day routine.
So it's all ideology and gun manufacturers/NRA propaganda wins for you.

But you should know that one STILL has to qualify in NYC to obtain a gun....the rule change does NOT affect that, just the CCW requirements AFTER you get the initial license.

But given that, let's hope all the gunner flunkies, idiots and zealots on this site don't increase incidents like this: https://thehill.com/changing-americ...ails-good-guy-with-a-gun-after-officer-kills/

Carry on.

You are just using kettle logic by begging the question.

If someone already possesses a legal firearm, and couldn't get a CC permit because the legal bar was impossible to pass without special exception, and now they can because NY state can no longer hold the bar that high, then this ruling has considerable impact on extant firearm owners in NY.

 

[Taichiliberal]

You are just using kettle logic by begging the question.

If someone already possesses a legal firearm, and couldn't get a CC permit because the legal bar was impossible to pass without special exception, and now they can because NY state can no longer hold the bar that high, then this ruling has considerable impact on extant firearm owners in NY.

You keep pounding a moot point that side steps not only my question, but the logical critique of your honest answer.

So a NYC licensed gun owner can now carry it concealed in public. My question was how does this change your life...YOU HONESTLY ANSWERED THAT DESPITE THIS NEW ABILITY, YOUR LIFE DOES NOT CHANGE.

So, I pointed out just one of the realities of increasing CCW among the populace. You don't have to like it, just acknowledge the reality. Like it or not, appeasing your mental comfort zone and political got'cha point for the gun lobby, you make the job of cops that much more difficult and dangerous, as well as folk like me just trying to get through the day.

In NYC you have an increase of idiot gang bangers and punks getting innocent civilians shot or killed by stray bullets or cross fire. Add to this the one armed citizen who decides to play hero, and you increase the bystander hits as well as cops possibly shooting the "hero" when they come on the scene.

Jeezus.

 

[goat]

What Hochul did is unconstitutional and will be struck down by the court.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Umm, YOU opened the door on that one, genius..not me. You just don't like my schooling you on how your assertion actually works in real life...and why it doesn't really answer the question. Now in another post you do answer the question and I respond. Hopefully, we can go from there without the animosity. I respond in kind, so don't start none and won't be none.

my assertion?

activities don't have to change for you to be actually safer and more well protected.

your argument is stupid.

you thought this demanding of activity change lists would be effective and compelling, but it's just dumb, bluster-boy.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

we can do the same stuff and we just don't die doing it.

you could probably even start going to more areas of town that improve because an armed society is a polite society.