New Yark: Whoa, Partner: You Got a Permit?

Status
Not open for further replies.

gun-fucious

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
1,977
Location
centre of the PA
Whoa, Partner: You Got a Permit?
http://www.newsday.com/mynews/ny-llpga03508712oct26,0,890850.story


Zachary R. Dowdy

October 26, 2003

A pistol license, which is granted by the Nassau and Suffolk police departments, is required to purchase a handgun on Long Island. Here are some of the local regulations for owning a firearm:

In Nassau, applicants pay a $200 application fee plus a $99 fingerprinting fee and submit to a background screening process, which takes between four and six months, said Sgt. Kevin Haig of the pistol licensing section of the Nassau County Police Department. In Suffolk, the application fee is $10 and fingerprinting costs $99, said Sgt. Michael Esposito, executive officer of Suffolk police's pistol licensing bureau.
In Nassau and Suffolk counties, the background check can include interviewing relatives, friends and neighbors of the applicant and checking for past criminal history. With few exceptions, applicants won't be cleared if they're convicted felons, and must be deemed by police of good moral character.
A history of domestic violence or a conviction for a sex offense, even though the crime may not have been a felony, may disqualify an applicant, Haig and Esposito said. Lying on an application may also result in an automatic disqualification.
License holders are required to understand the state's laws for use of deadly physical force, as outlined in the state penal code.
There are two categories of licenses, premise licenses and carry licenses. Those break down into seven types: premise licenses are designated for storage at a specific location - a home or a business; business licenses are carry licenses for people who require a firearm to protect their livelihood, such as a jeweler; target/hunting licenses are for recreational use, at ranges, for example; licenses for security guards or armored-car drivers are carry licenses; full carry licenses are for people authorized to carry a handgun at all times; licenses for retired law enforcement officers and licenses for auxiliary officers are also carry licenses.
Purchasers of long guns, which are rifles and shotguns, are not required to have licenses but must be checked out through the National Instant Check System if their guns are purchased at gun shows or from stores. The criminal background screening system is called by merchants just before the sale is made.

Copyright © 2003, Newsday, Inc.
 
Damn!

I knew it was bad in NY but not that bad. Sounds more like NAZI Germany than a state in the United States of America.

All those checks and the crime rate is still way, way higher than in Oklahoma (and we can walk in to a store pick out the gun we want - handgun or not - and walk out with it 15 minutes later). :rolleyes:

Even CCW permits aren't that stringent here - I mean come on - interviewing neighbors - that's truly Gestapoesque.

Just goes to prove the ole saw that if you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns!
 
. . . applicants . . . must be deemed by police of good moral character.
This means you have to make substantial donations to the campaign fund of the local police chief's boss, usually the mayor of that town.
 
Thats what 200 years of more progress and legislation can and will do for ya, Werewolf.

Or is it "to" ya?

Out here in the desert, if you find a gun you want to buy, you put down the cash, fill out the yeller form (grrrrr), await the phone call that only costs ya $15 more (another grrrrr) and take your newly purchased firearm home. How barbaric.

At least in Clark County NV, they also require you to register your handguns with the Sheriff's office by filling out yet another form (grrrrr again) BUT, they give you a "blue" card to carry with you, so I guess thats progress along the NY lines of thinking. That particular law was given to the citizens of Clark Co. waaaaay back in 1965 by our Democratic County Commission, so it precedes the 68 GCA. How's that for advanced thinking? No crime here as a result (yeah, right) I'm sure.

Freedom sure has a lot of rules don't it?

Adios
 
Keep in mind that up top a few years ago, it was easier to get a CCW in upstate NY (outside NYC) than it was in Texas...NY was one of the first staes to allow for CCWs (since 1912)....

WildbutAlaskaisbetterAlaska
 
Actually its lower than such gun friendly states as Alaska, Nevada, Texas, Florida, Louiisiana and Tenessee, so therefore, to follow your argument, more gun contro, equals less crime.


WildcheckthestasAlaska
 
Well there is upstate and there is UPSTATE. Here in central part of the state the fees were somthing like $10 and $3, but it did still take 3 months.
 
Hello Wild...

"Actually its lower than such gun friendly states as Alaska, Nevada, Texas, Florida, Louiisiana and Tenessee, so therefore, to follow your argument, more gun contro, equals less crime."

What information did you use to come to this conclusion?

Thanks in advance.

DRC
 
WildAlaska is not correct.

These are Violent Crime totals. No where in these statistics does it break down the number of crimes committed with a firearm not to mention the rate per 100,000 is only seperated by about 40 to 50 incidents overall in a state where it is harder to get a gun. Plus Vermont, the state with the most lax gon control laws has the lowest violent crime rate per 100,000. But again there is no break down of crimes committed with guns.

Wild's assertion is baseless even with these stats. Why? What if the majority of these violent crimes were committed with knives or baseball bats? Gun control doesn't do anything where these things are concerned. More gun control equals less crime? I think the cold air and elevation is depleting oxygen to the brain.

Take care and try the truth next time. You might be surprised at what you can learn.

DRC
 
DSC said:

Take care and try the truth next time. You might be surprised at what you can learn.

Good lord. You might be suprised what you can learn if you read the entire cite and understand what is being said. Wildalaska was responding to a post about violent crime in New York. Not violent crime committed with guns vs. other stuff. Not violent crime in Vermont. Just violent crime.

He was making a point that you obviously failed to understand. The causes of crime and the effect of crime prevention are not black-and-white, and to rely on cherry-picked data that says otherwise is foolish. Also, you may not know everything you think you do. At least, that's what I picked up from it.

---

Werewolf,

You can find some per city stuff if you search for a while. I was suprised to find that Houston has a higher per capita murder rate than NYC, for example.
 
Um...Demise...They make Tenactin for the occasional itch of atheletes tongue

"Actually its lower than such gun friendly states as Alaska, Nevada, Texas, Florida, Louiisiana and Tenessee, so therefore, to follow your argument, more gun control , equals less crime ." (emphasis mine)

Wilds previous posts were regarding CCW and the ease or lack thereof of getting one. Wild was referring directly to gun control and its corrolation to "violent crime" in NY as a generality.

"Good lord. You might be suprised what you can learn if you read the entire cite and understand what is being said. Wildalaska was responding to a post about violent crime in New York. Not violent crime committed with guns vs. other stuff. Not violent crime in Vermont. Just violent crime."

Come again? Responding to? Yes. Responding with? No. Wild made a direct corrolation to gun control and violent crime and how much higher it was in "gun friendly states." Vermont is the most gun friendly state in the nation and the link to the stats lists ALL states so I used ALL of the information given, by you no less.

"He was making a point that you obviously failed to understand. The causes of crime and the effect of crime prevention are not black-and-white, and to rely on cherry-picked data that says otherwise is foolish. Also, you may not know everything you think you do. At least, that's what I picked up from it."

Wild was making the point that more gun control leads to less crime based on stats for "violent crime" (FYI I used your "cherry-picked data." from the link you provided) Perhaps I know more than you give me credit for and perhaps you know less than I gave you credit for.

"At least, that's what I picked up from it."

You didn't even pick up what Wild said in "black-and-white" so I'm not sure you should try to lend any credence to the last line there ;)

Take care,

And it's DRC not DSC :D
 
Hey DRC, read standing Wolfs post and my response again, and stop trying to put words in my mouth or interpret my clear statement...

WildthepostsspeakforthemselvesAlaska
 
stats,dang stats!

I am an ex NEWYORKCITY resident,my late dad was a state trooper,my bro was NYPD now latteraled outta there.
NYC sucks! statisical crime does not = real crime.
most crime goes unreported,reported crime hardly ever gets solved so whats the point?
I never got mugged in Miami and spent alot of time there,
I got mugged plenty in NY !
I also prevented myself from getting robbed plenty,with knives,nunchucks,clubs,broken bottles,bicycle locks & rocks.
Never reported that either.
Even if the cops showed up no report was ever made.
I Love NY.
But I will never visit unless things change radically.
 
DRC said:

Wild was making the point that more gun control leads to less crime based on stats for "violent crime" (FYI I used your "cherry-picked data." from the link you provided) Perhaps I know more than you give me credit for and perhaps you know less than I gave you credit for.

This makes no sense at all. Are you saying that the Bureau of Justice Statistics cherry-picks their data? It's all right there, not dribs and drabs picked out to support a specific point. So what if Vermont, one of the smallest states, population-wise, has a low crime rate? You're going to take a single state and hold it up and show everyone how shiny and perfect it is while you ignore at least a half dozen others just to make a false point? That is the definition of cherry-picking your data. Antis do it all the time, so it should be something for you to avoid.

What are you arguing here? Are you trying to say that Alaska, Nevada, Texas, Florida, Louisiana and Tenessee have less violent crime than New York? Hint: they don't.

Let me explain it for you really clearly: Standing Wolf made a sarcastic comment about crime in New York being low, assumedly because they have restrictive gun laws. Wildalaska pointed out that, in fact, New York's crime rate IS lower than other states with more open gun laws. People are looking at the issue too single-mindedly. There are far more factors to crime rates than gun laws, and to think otherwise is extremely simple-minded. You, DRC, apparently, could not figure this out and began hollering about Vermont, like one low-density, low-population state makes a difference. It would be nice if every state had carry laws like Vermont, and I think it would have a positive impact on crime, but it's not the end-all-be-all of crime elimination.
 
I'm terribly sorry Wild...

So you're saying you did not say, and I quote:

"Actually its lower than such gun friendly states as Alaska, Nevada, Texas, Florida, Louiisiana and Tenessee, so therefore, to follow your argument, more gun control , equals less crime ." (emphasis mine)

Standing wolf said:

"Now I understand why New York has such low violent crime rates."

But you responded with the above quoted post. This is why I said to demise...

"Responding to? Yes. Responding with? No."

So that there is no more confusion I will reiterate what you said and will emphasise it as well "more gun control , equals less crime " The stats site listed by Demise lists stats for all 50 states but by the response I recieved from Demise I guess I am only allowed to use those you posted, but you left out Vermont which is the most gun friendly state in the nation and has the lowest violent crime rate per 100,000.

I do believe there was a misunderstanding that I would like to point out. When I said "Take care and try the truth next time. You might be surprised at what you can learn." I was not speaking to Demise but was speaking to you, Wildalaska. I should have made that clearer. My bad, but your (Wild alaska) statement is still incorrect no matter how you slice it.

Take care folks and let the facts speak for themselves, unless of course you don't believe the facts you post ;)

DRC

PS. Just read Demise drivel so I'm editting:

"This makes no sense at all. Are you saying that the Bureau of Justice Statistics cherry-picks their data? It's all right there, not dribs and drabs picked out to support a specific point. So what if Vermont, one of the smallest states, population-wise, has a low crime rate? You're going to take a single state and hold it up and show everyone how shiny and perfect it is while you ignore at least a half dozen others just to make a false point? That is the definition of cherry-picking your data. Antis do it all the time, so it should be something for you to avoid."

I shouldn't avoid it when it proves my point. Perhaps you should try it sometime. The Bureau of Justice Statistics did not cherry-pick their data (per say), you cherry-picked it for this thread or do you not remember that? It's the link in your post. I used the data that you posted (if the proir scentence wasn't clear enough.) Vermont is a small state which is why I used the "per 100,000" stat which follows suit with the others. Small or not people live there and people can commit crimes, even violent ones.

"What are you arguing here? Are you trying to say that Alaska, Nevada, Texas, Florida, Louisiana and Tenessee have less violent crime than New York? Hint: they don't."

Hint my arguement has nothing to do with violent crime rates other than to say there is no supporting infromation to determine that guns were used in every instance nor is there any evidence to prove Wilds assertion that "more gun control, equals less crime"

"Let me explain it for you really clearly: Standing Wolf made a sarcastic comment about crime in New York being low, assumedly because they have restrictive gun laws."

How do you know it was meant to be sarcastic? "assumedly"??? Is that really a word?

"Wildalaska pointed out that, in fact, New York's crime rate IS lower than other states with more open gun laws."

But Wildalska didn't include Vermont in the list so who's using "cherry-picked" data?

"People are looking at the issue too single-mindedly."

Do you have any information to support this claim?

"There are far more factors to crime rates than gun laws, and to think otherwise is extremely simple-minded."

EXACTLY! Now you're catching on. :)

"You, DRC, apparently, could not figure this out and began hollering about Vermont, like one low-density, low-population state makes a difference."

Why wouldn't it? It's a state in the Union with the most lax gun control in the nation and is, in fact, on the list you posted the link to.

"It would be nice if every state had carry laws like Vermont, and I think it would have a positive impact on crime, but it's not the end-all-be-all of crime elimination."

Perhaps I misread you. You are a pretty smart cookie after all. I'm glad you've managed to explain to yourself in a manner you could understand exactly what I said to begin with. Mi hermano.

Take care and glad to have you back on track.

DRC
 
My sentiments exactly Wild.

"What a waste of time...."

Sadly you seem to be the only person not getting this. You've made an assertion that is incorrect and or proven completely wrong based on readily available information in this very thread no less and yet you think you have a point? It is a waist of time...for me. To try to explain the painfully obvious when the merely obviously should be more than enough is ludicrous at best.

"imnotgonnaarguejustforthesakeofarguing"

My interjection only but this should read:

"imnotgonnaarguejustforthesakeofsavingfacebecauseimlosingsaidargument"

Take care and keep up the good work.

DRC
 
Western NY, Central NY, Capital Distric, Hudson Valley, New York City, "THE" island all are different and have different crime rates, looking at the entire state just averages things out.

I am a CCW holder upstate, an investigated, fingerprinted, registered good guy up here, but if I cross the line and go into NYC I am illegal. Handgun laws are quite different from upstate to downstate.

Up here a cop shot a guy a couple of days ago during a struggle(didn't kill him), it has been front page news, above the fold, for 3 days. In NYC it would of been on a back page somewhere for 1 day.

Crime rate in Central part of the state is higher that it use to be, before the state built several prisions up here and th goblins from NYC discovered upstate, but much lower than places like NYC or even Rochester.
 
DRC,

Dogma should not replace thought. In you, it has. Discussing issues with you is like talking to a rubber mat. You also seem bound and determined to have the last word, so enjoy yourself.
 
Not the last word, just the correct one.

Demise,

I don't think that what I'm saying could be consider as much a doctrine of absolute authority but I am right with regard to the subject presented by Wildalaska. When people tell me things like "Dogma should not replace thought. In you, it has." I have to ask why you think that? Is it because I don't think like you? Is it because I'm wrong? If the latter, show me where. I've given you and Wild the chance (several actually) to do so but instead have been referred to as less than intelligent, incapable of understanding, putting words in peoples mouths and now a "rubber mat" but no where have I seen any evidence that shows where I made a mistake. When I go back and reread the thread (which I do a few times before I even elect to post) I find even more things I should have addressed not mistakes, misunderstandings or misrepresentations on my part.

It seems strange to me that you seem to be a gun person and are defending one who thinks more gun control is the answer to violent crime, not that there is anything wrong with that to each his own, but I've taken Wild's assertion and your information and made the case against more gun control based on the statistics and again that was Wild's contention and I will quote again Wildalaska said "more gun control , equals less crime ." is that not plain enough? And if Vermont is in direct opposition to that assertion why is that not relevent? Not once have I said that Alaska, Nevada, Texas, Florida, Louiisiana or Tenessee did not have statistically higher violent crime rates but Vermont does fly in the face of the idea that more gun control equals less crime. Not to mention the stats are not broken down into crimes committed with guns vs. others in the first place so the assertion doesn't hold water to begin with based on that alone.

Bound and determined to have the last word? If you mean all the facts I've presented here and in all my other posts in this thread then I will have to agree with you.

Take care and remember things bounce off of rubber mats only to end up back in your court ;)

DRC
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top