<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Gunpoint robbery 110 Park</title>
	<atom:link href="http://hoboken411.com/archives/17684/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://hoboken411.com/archives/17684</link>
	<description>Making our community stronger with technology</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 17:13:25 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: broken</title>
		<link>http://hoboken411.com/archives/17684/comment-page-5#comment-149738</link>
		<dc:creator>broken</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2009 12:06:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hoboken411.com/archives/17684#comment-149738</guid>
		<description>[quote comment=&quot;149582&quot;]It&#039;s interesting how many &quot;liberal&quot; anti-gun people in NYC have gun permits, including (if memory serves correct) Rosie O&#039;Donnell&#039;s bodyguard.

I also don&#039;t understand the ban mentality on anything. It is a fantasy to think any ban on anything really works.

I am far more fearful of a moron driving a car than I am of any criminal or gun-owning citizen.

Statistics (aka lies) vary, but police-involved shootings have accuracy rates as low as 17% and these are people who receive ongoing firearms training.  Like any skill, it is only as good as your training.[/quote]
Even more interesting is that police make more than twice as many &quot;errors&quot; as private citizens in shooting people (as definied by shooting wrong person, or person not a criminal.) Maybe a) all that training isn&#039;t working or b) makes the cops trigger happy.  Or maybe a private citizen proactively managing their own security isn&#039;t really the &quot;danger to society at large&quot; that some people seem to think it is.  

About the &quot;assault weapon&quot; ban - this is complete nonsense.  The assault weapon ban made &quot;scary looking&quot; guns illegal for no particular reason.  Machine guns were already illegal - the guns that were banned were just similar looking gas operated semi auto&#039;s.  In reality, they are no more dangerous than common hunting rifles - many of which are also semi-auto (though I prefer the accuracy of a bolt action).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="quoter-wrap">
<p><u><b>nacholibre </b>wrote:</u></p>
<blockquote cite="http://hoboken411.com/archives/17684#comment-149582"><p>
It&#8217;s interesting how many &#8220;liberal&#8221; anti-gun people in NYC have gun permits, including (if memory serves correct) Rosie O&#8217;Donnell&#8217;s bodyguard.</p>
<p>I also don&#8217;t understand the ban mentality on anything. It is a fantasy to think any ban on anything really works.</p>
<p>I am far more fearful of a moron driving a car than I am of any criminal or gun-owning citizen.</p>
<p>Statistics (aka lies) vary, but police-involved shootings have accuracy rates as low as 17% and these are people who receive ongoing firearms training.  Like any skill, it is only as good as your training.</p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p>Even more interesting is that police make more than twice as many &#8220;errors&#8221; as private citizens in shooting people (as definied by shooting wrong person, or person not a criminal.) Maybe a) all that training isn&#8217;t working or b) makes the cops trigger happy.  Or maybe a private citizen proactively managing their own security isn&#8217;t really the &#8220;danger to society at large&#8221; that some people seem to think it is.  </p>
<p>About the &#8220;assault weapon&#8221; ban &#8211; this is complete nonsense.  The assault weapon ban made &#8220;scary looking&#8221; guns illegal for no particular reason.  Machine guns were already illegal &#8211; the guns that were banned were just similar looking gas operated semi auto&#8217;s.  In reality, they are no more dangerous than common hunting rifles &#8211; many of which are also semi-auto (though I prefer the accuracy of a bolt action).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: OldNewComer</title>
		<link>http://hoboken411.com/archives/17684/comment-page-5#comment-149649</link>
		<dc:creator>OldNewComer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Apr 2009 00:03:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hoboken411.com/archives/17684#comment-149649</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s a federal republic. States like VA or GA or where ever are not going to vote locally to &#039;ban guns&#039;. It may not be constitutional anyway. And it&#039;s almost surely not constitutional for the federal govt to &#039;ban guns&#039;, besides there also being nowhere near the votes to do it in Congress; a lot the new majority the Democrats have is from states and districts where moderate Dems had to convince pro-gun voters to vote for them. So banning guns is just not a practical proposal. There are 10&#039;s mils guns in the US and will be for as long as we all live: that&#039;s reality.

The only semi-realistic argument is whether *NJ* should have *looser* gun laws in the sense of making it easier for people walking on 1st st at 3:00AM to be packing pack heat, that *could* be done, though also unlikely in the politics of NJ. I used to live near there and work long hours, 20 years ago, never had a problem. Now I live uptown and don&#039;t work long hours, and getting mugged is pretty far down the list of my worries, in general or as to what&#039;s wrong with Hoboken. And I doubt many of the people who do walk late at night would want to carry a gun. But FWIW I&#039;d support reasonably easy to get carry permits with the right screening, but again that&#039;s going to happen in NJ?, I don&#039;t think so. You can move to Texas if you really want to...

But it is fun to argue gun control and have *nobody*, *ever* change their mind. An internet debate about gun control where somebody seriously says: &#039;OK you convinced me, I&#039;ve changed my mind about guns&#039;. That would be sometime to see.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s a federal republic. States like VA or GA or where ever are not going to vote locally to &#8216;ban guns&#8217;. It may not be constitutional anyway. And it&#8217;s almost surely not constitutional for the federal govt to &#8216;ban guns&#8217;, besides there also being nowhere near the votes to do it in Congress; a lot the new majority the Democrats have is from states and districts where moderate Dems had to convince pro-gun voters to vote for them. So banning guns is just not a practical proposal. There are 10&#8217;s mils guns in the US and will be for as long as we all live: that&#8217;s reality.</p>
<p>The only semi-realistic argument is whether *NJ* should have *looser* gun laws in the sense of making it easier for people walking on 1st st at 3:00AM to be packing pack heat, that *could* be done, though also unlikely in the politics of NJ. I used to live near there and work long hours, 20 years ago, never had a problem. Now I live uptown and don&#8217;t work long hours, and getting mugged is pretty far down the list of my worries, in general or as to what&#8217;s wrong with Hoboken. And I doubt many of the people who do walk late at night would want to carry a gun. But FWIW I&#8217;d support reasonably easy to get carry permits with the right screening, but again that&#8217;s going to happen in NJ?, I don&#8217;t think so. You can move to Texas if you really want to&#8230;</p>
<p>But it is fun to argue gun control and have *nobody*, *ever* change their mind. An internet debate about gun control where somebody seriously says: &#8216;OK you convinced me, I&#8217;ve changed my mind about guns&#8217;. That would be sometime to see.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: 0h7b0k3n0</title>
		<link>http://hoboken411.com/archives/17684/comment-page-5#comment-149638</link>
		<dc:creator>0h7b0k3n0</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 Apr 2009 18:43:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hoboken411.com/archives/17684#comment-149638</guid>
		<description>[quote comment=&quot;149624&quot;]i believe people should be allowed to smoke on any private property - if the property owner has decided to allow it. If Target decided it was okay to smoke indoors as a corporate rule, then why should the gov&#039;t step in to regulate it?  let the market dictate what happens.  target is not a necessity - go shop in a non-smoking store. if non-smoking environments are as coveted as people suggest, then target will lose business to non-smoking competitors.  conversely, there may be a section of society that gos out of their way to patronize target because they can smoke while they shop.  the &quot;workplace&quot; argument is complete bullshit - because workers have the ability to choose their employment - so a smoking vs. non-smoking environment is just one more decision to make in accepting a job.  also - the majority of employers and building owners would not allow smoking regardless of gov&#039;t intervention because of insurance, public perception, customers, etc.

however, as applied to bars, the workplace argument is total bullshit.  some bars have less than 10 employees - some bars in queens where i used to live have like 3 employees - with the owner behind the bar half the time.  regulating a private property owner and telling him he can&#039;t smoke in a bar he owns?  bullshit.  bars have lot a ton of money due to the ban - and as i said earlier - if you rescinded the ban right now - half the bars would remain smoke-free.  business would be booming with non-smokers at those bars, and smokers would come out of the wood work to patronize the smoking establishments.

i am a non-smoker - i just think that a response to a situation that includes &quot;ban it&quot; is nonsensical[/quote]

+1</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="quoter-wrap">
<p><u><b>ricky roma </b>wrote:</u></p>
<blockquote cite="http://hoboken411.com/archives/17684#comment-149624"><p>
i believe people should be allowed to smoke on any private property &#8211; if the property owner has decided to allow it. If Target decided it was okay to smoke indoors as a corporate rule, then why should the gov&#8217;t step in to regulate it?  let the market dictate what happens.  target is not a necessity &#8211; go shop in a non-smoking store. if non-smoking environments are as coveted as people suggest, then target will lose business to non-smoking competitors.  conversely, there may be a section of society that gos out of their way to patronize target because they can smoke while they shop.  the &#8220;workplace&#8221; argument is complete bullshit &#8211; because workers have the ability to choose their employment &#8211; so a smoking vs. non-smoking environment is just one more decision to make in accepting a job.  also &#8211; the majority of employers and building owners would not allow smoking regardless of gov&#8217;t intervention because of insurance, public perception, customers, etc.</p>
<p>however, as applied to bars, the workplace argument is total bullshit.  some bars have less than 10 employees &#8211; some bars in queens where i used to live have like 3 employees &#8211; with the owner behind the bar half the time.  regulating a private property owner and telling him he can&#8217;t smoke in a bar he owns?  bullshit.  bars have lot a ton of money due to the ban &#8211; and as i said earlier &#8211; if you rescinded the ban right now &#8211; half the bars would remain smoke-free.  business would be booming with non-smokers at those bars, and smokers would come out of the wood work to patronize the smoking establishments.</p>
<p>i am a non-smoker &#8211; i just think that a response to a situation that includes &#8220;ban it&#8221; is nonsensical</p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p>+1</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: plywood</title>
		<link>http://hoboken411.com/archives/17684/comment-page-4#comment-149634</link>
		<dc:creator>plywood</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 Apr 2009 16:21:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hoboken411.com/archives/17684#comment-149634</guid>
		<description>The link above doesn&#039;t work but if you&#039;re talking about Mr. Roberts or Mr. Corzine, I think they&#039;ve fixed enough and should put their hands up and step away from the controls. Let&#039;s have them stick to the non sequiturs!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The link above doesn&#8217;t work but if you&#8217;re talking about Mr. Roberts or Mr. Corzine, I think they&#8217;ve fixed enough and should put their hands up and step away from the controls. Let&#8217;s have them stick to the non sequiturs!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: YipYap</title>
		<link>http://hoboken411.com/archives/17684/comment-page-4#comment-149629</link>
		<dc:creator>YipYap</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 Apr 2009 15:57:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hoboken411.com/archives/17684#comment-149629</guid>
		<description>Problem here is the gun used in this robbery most likely came from out of State.

Thousands of guns are purchased in Virgina, Pennsylvania, Georgia and other States each year and end up in New Jersey.

Here is an ATF report from 2007 on over 3000 guns that were confiscated in New Jersey 2007.

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/ATF_2007/newjersey07_(5-12).pdf

Don&#039;t worry though our exalted leader plans on fixing this problem.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Problem here is the gun used in this robbery most likely came from out of State.</p>
<p>Thousands of guns are purchased in Virgina, Pennsylvania, Georgia and other States each year and end up in New Jersey.</p>
<p>Here is an ATF report from 2007 on over 3000 guns that were confiscated in New Jersey 2007.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/ATF_2007/newjersey07_(5-12).pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"></a><a href='http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/ATF_2007/newjersey07_' target="_blank">mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/ATF_2007/newjersey07_</a>(5-12).pdf</p>
<p>Don&#8217;t worry though our exalted leader plans on fixing this problem.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: plywood</title>
		<link>http://hoboken411.com/archives/17684/comment-page-4#comment-149626</link>
		<dc:creator>plywood</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 Apr 2009 15:27:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hoboken411.com/archives/17684#comment-149626</guid>
		<description>Nothing funny or ironic about increasing the number of guns on the street, no matter whose hands they are in. Too complex a debate to negotiate here. I won&#039;t change your mind, and you won&#039;t change mine.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nothing funny or ironic about increasing the number of guns on the street, no matter whose hands they are in. Too complex a debate to negotiate here. I won&#8217;t change your mind, and you won&#8217;t change mine.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: HansBrix</title>
		<link>http://hoboken411.com/archives/17684/comment-page-4#comment-149625</link>
		<dc:creator>HansBrix</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 Apr 2009 15:12:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hoboken411.com/archives/17684#comment-149625</guid>
		<description>[quote comment=&quot;149623&quot;]Why make mugging or murder illegal criminals will do it anyway. (?!)[/quote]


&lt;b&gt;Non sequitur:&lt;/b&gt; A conversational and literary device, often used for comical purposes (as opposed to its use in formal logic). It is a comment which, due to its lack of meaning relative to the comment it follows, is absurd to the point of being humorous or confusing. Its use can be deliberate or unintentional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(absurdism)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="quoter-wrap">
<p><u><b>plywood </b>wrote:</u></p>
<blockquote cite="http://hoboken411.com/archives/17684#comment-149623"><p>
Why make mugging or murder illegal criminals will do it anyway. (?!)</p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p><b>Non sequitur:</b> A conversational and literary device, often used for comical purposes (as opposed to its use in formal logic). It is a comment which, due to its lack of meaning relative to the comment it follows, is absurd to the point of being humorous or confusing. Its use can be deliberate or unintentional.</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(absurdism)" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"></a><a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_' target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_</a>(absurdism)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ricky roma</title>
		<link>http://hoboken411.com/archives/17684/comment-page-4#comment-149624</link>
		<dc:creator>ricky roma</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 Apr 2009 15:11:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hoboken411.com/archives/17684#comment-149624</guid>
		<description>i believe people should be allowed to smoke on any private property - if the property owner has decided to allow it. If Target decided it was okay to smoke indoors as a corporate rule, then why should the gov&#039;t step in to regulate it?  let the market dictate what happens.  target is not a necessity - go shop in a non-smoking store. if non-smoking environments are as coveted as people suggest, then target will lose business to non-smoking competitors.  conversely, there may be a section of society that gos out of their way to patronize target because they can smoke while they shop.  the &quot;workplace&quot; argument is complete bullshit - because workers have the ability to choose their employment - so a smoking vs. non-smoking environment is just one more decision to make in accepting a job.  also - the majority of employers and building owners would not allow smoking regardless of gov&#039;t intervention because of insurance, public perception, customers, etc. 

however, as applied to bars, the workplace argument is total bullshit.  some bars have less than 10 employees - some bars in queens where i used to live have like 3 employees - with the owner behind the bar half the time.  regulating a private property owner and telling him he can&#039;t smoke in a bar he owns?  bullshit.  bars have lot a ton of money due to the ban - and as i said earlier - if you rescinded the ban right now - half the bars would remain smoke-free.  business would be booming with non-smokers at those bars, and smokers would come out of the wood work to patronize the smoking establishments.

i am a non-smoker - i just think that a response to a situation that includes &quot;ban it&quot; is nonsensical</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>i believe people should be allowed to smoke on any private property &#8211; if the property owner has decided to allow it. If Target decided it was okay to smoke indoors as a corporate rule, then why should the gov&#8217;t step in to regulate it?  let the market dictate what happens.  target is not a necessity &#8211; go shop in a non-smoking store. if non-smoking environments are as coveted as people suggest, then target will lose business to non-smoking competitors.  conversely, there may be a section of society that gos out of their way to patronize target because they can smoke while they shop.  the &#8220;workplace&#8221; argument is complete bullshit &#8211; because workers have the ability to choose their employment &#8211; so a smoking vs. non-smoking environment is just one more decision to make in accepting a job.  also &#8211; the majority of employers and building owners would not allow smoking regardless of gov&#8217;t intervention because of insurance, public perception, customers, etc. </p>
<p>however, as applied to bars, the workplace argument is total bullshit.  some bars have less than 10 employees &#8211; some bars in queens where i used to live have like 3 employees &#8211; with the owner behind the bar half the time.  regulating a private property owner and telling him he can&#8217;t smoke in a bar he owns?  bullshit.  bars have lot a ton of money due to the ban &#8211; and as i said earlier &#8211; if you rescinded the ban right now &#8211; half the bars would remain smoke-free.  business would be booming with non-smokers at those bars, and smokers would come out of the wood work to patronize the smoking establishments.</p>
<p>i am a non-smoker &#8211; i just think that a response to a situation that includes &#8220;ban it&#8221; is nonsensical</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: plywood</title>
		<link>http://hoboken411.com/archives/17684/comment-page-4#comment-149623</link>
		<dc:creator>plywood</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 Apr 2009 14:56:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hoboken411.com/archives/17684#comment-149623</guid>
		<description>Why make mugging or murder illegal criminals will do it anyway. (?!)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why make mugging or murder illegal criminals will do it anyway. (?!)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: HansBrix</title>
		<link>http://hoboken411.com/archives/17684/comment-page-4#comment-149621</link>
		<dc:creator>HansBrix</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 Apr 2009 14:32:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hoboken411.com/archives/17684#comment-149621</guid>
		<description>[quote comment=&quot;149619&quot;]  People can get them illegally so we shouldn&#039;t ban them?[/quote]

If banning doesn&#039;t keep guns out of the hands of criminals what would it really accomplish?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="quoter-wrap">
<p><u><b>RUHOBO </b>wrote:</u></p>
<blockquote cite="http://hoboken411.com/archives/17684#comment-149619"><p>
  People can get them illegally so we shouldn&#8217;t ban them?</p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p>If banning doesn&#8217;t keep guns out of the hands of criminals what would it really accomplish?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
