Saturday, December 19, 2015

We Can All Feel Safer

The Register-Star reports today that the sheriffs of Columbia and Greene counties concur with the sheriff of Ulster County in advocating that everyone licensed to carry firearms should do so: "Columbia, Greene county sheriffs support firearms right."  
O brave new world.


  1. IMO...the area is over policed. We have Hudson PD, County Sheriff, State Police, Greenport PD constantly threading there way through the area. Do we really need more gun slingers.

  2. No Shirts
    No Shoes
    No Guns
    No Service

  3. I'm betting the first person to get shot by one of these vigilantes will NOT be a criminal with a gun.

  4. As stated before if you do not believe in guns please hang a sign out in your front yard or on your front door to let everyone know your stance on this issue

    1. I believe our common objective is, or should be, to reduce the number of innocent deaths by gunfire. If a sign on my front yard could bring this about, I'd be happy to do it.

    2. I took the commenter to mean that anyone who advertises that their property is gun-free thereby puts their home at risk. The belief is that the missing element of deterrence can actually lead to more gun violence, not less.

      I have to say, I'm inclined to agree.

    3. So by logical inference, if the aim is to decrease gun violence, the sign should read "armed and ready inside". And if the sign itself will have this effect, what do I need with a gun?

      By all statistics, a gun in the home is far, far more likely to be used against someone in the home than any outside intruder. And while anectodal evidence is not proof, this, sad to say, has also been my lifelong experience with gun ownership. I would need more than my ten fingers to count the number of domestic gun violence incidents and gun suicide deaths which have personally touched me; while I have never been acquainted with any gun owner who actually staved off a home invader.

      The subject, however, was guns in public places, and my original comment was directed to that subject. I find myself wondering why both you and the commenter have chosen to convert this discussion to a defense of guns in the home. Can it be I'm not the only one who's concerned about guns in the hands of the fearful and overwrought?

    4. I'm more concerned about people driving vehicles than I am of people carrying firearms.

    5. This stance on gun ownership is not what I'm arguing. I understand people don't like guns but placing fear in people that have no stance on the issue is not right either. What is this article about anyways? Is it to let people know that people who are legally eligible to carry a firearm should or is it a scare tactic that all gun owners are maniac vigilante type. From what I see more people who can carry a firearm would not use it unless their life is in jeopardy due to the fact that today's they would be the one on trial.

      As far as domestic violence, suicide or accidents happening do they not occur with other weapons such as knifes or baseball bats or axes. Suicide occur by prescription drugs or knifes as well. Accidents occur resulting in deaths from vehicles, planes construction equipment and so on. But I do not see a push for these things to get banned or abolished. Bad people do bad things just as good people do bad things. Why does the blame get changed?

  5. These sheriffs have to serve people in the remote areas of Hillsdale and Hunter.

    Why should (over)protected city dwellers determine the level of protection for citizens in these remote areas?

    Furthermore, in any city corrupted by inner city politicians and lawyers, that cite liability as an excuse to limit liberty, and no laws to protect one-man one-vote, repeal of the second amendment will be a necessity, should a "rebel-lution" begin.


    1. Joe, not for nothin', but these statements made by all 3 Sheriffs, just came out in response to the San Bernardino, Calif. shootings; allegedly by self radicalized ISIL followers.
      Not one of these Sheriffs made any such statements after Sandy Hook or any of the many other mass shootings by one of our "own" fanatics' bloodbaths.
      That's all I have to say on this...I do not want get into any 2nd amendment discussion.

  6. HA, these issues are inseparable. We now live in the zeitgeist of rule by division rather than leadership with consent.

    When our betters fail to separate us from the insane or extreme not even superman can arrive in time to thwart the evil doers.

    These sheriffs are further frustrated by entrenched inner city rulers, that have our protectors second guessing split second situations, that may end up with deputies in hand cuffs or worse yet, the morgue.

  7. Basically many people now believe it has come down to every person for themselves. When the many protective departments state be ready to defend yourself could it mean that the wolf is at the door. And is it now just common sense that the Police, etc. can not be everywhere to save you from murderers.
    You better believe it.
    But that is living in terror, and what terrorists want to happen to us.
    I'm torn. Do I want to see six shooters on peoples' belts? Probably not. But again, if I found myself to be in a life threatening situation and the person by me shot the assailant I would be overjoyed.
    Welcome to our new world.
    Annie and Andy, get your guns.

  8. Nobody wants to see innocent people killed by guns. But taking away guns is not the answer...2hich way do you see it criminals killing people with guns or legal "vigilante" killing people with guns