Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 345584 times)

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1050 on: April 28, 2016, 01:21:25 PM »
- The US has the most guns, and hence the most instances of guns being used in acts of violence. This is true. No brainer. The sky is blue. So what?
- If there were fewer guns, there may be fewer deaths. So what?
- Statistical likelihoods again. Irrelevant.
-Maintaining the right to keep and bear arms is more important than preventing some deaths each year.
If we banned and confiscated all guns, we would probably save lots of lives. Not worth it. Firearms are essential to human liberty. Giving them up is insane.

Well, we each have our definition of insane.  How liberty=guns is anyone's guess.  Again - how did people get so paranoid and chickenshit?

I hate to quote myself, but...

I often wonder if anti-gun people understand the importance of the role of firearms when it comes to the liberty that most of us take for granted. People talk about where human rights come from in theory. It is also important to think about where they came from in practice.

Throughout (basically) all of human history, the vast majority of human beings lived in abject subjugation. The average person was basically the property of a king, or warlord, or emperor, or tribal ruler, or whatever. This situation was ALWAYS maintained using one basic mechanism; the professional soldier. In different times, places, and cultures, this looked different. The Roman Legion, the Greek Hoplite, the Byzantine Cataphract, and so on. The ruling class was able to maintain absolute control over the population by maintaining small numbers of expertly trained and well equipped soldiers. Human beings had, in practice, no rights because they could not exert their claim to human rights against rulers wielding even small numbers of professional soldiers.

Use the classic European Knight as an example. The knight was part of the ruling class. He was trained from a young age to fight. His weapons, armor, several trained warhorses and so on were incredibly expensive. By maintaining even a small number of these professional soldiers, the ruling class could maintain whatever level of control over the subject class they desired.

All the religious principles, all the philosophy, all the basic yearning people have for human dignity cannot stand up to a mounted charge from knights on horseback. Humans have always had basic, inherent rights. However, they had no way to force the ruling classes to acknowledge this fact. Five thousand righteously angry peasants with pitchforks could not stand up to 100 professionally trained and equipped knights on horseback.

Then the firearm was invented. Now, the peasant could be trained in a day to use a musket to shoot a knight off of his horse. Many people acknowledge how this changed warfare, but fewer acknowledge how it changed the relationship between the ruler and the ruled. After the proliferation of the firearm, the ruling class could no longer subjugate the vast majority of human beings with the threat of small numbers of professional soldiers. It totally changed the power dynamic. It is not a coincidence that the 18th and 19th and 20th century saw people all over the world overthrowing their rulers, or at least demanding basic human rights and dignity.

Human beings didn't suddenly figure out they should be free. They always knew it. The proliferation of the firearm gave them the ability to demand it. Human rights, dignity, and liberty in practice literally flow from the barrel of a gun. Ask, tell, make.

Those who would willingly give up the firearm and throw themselves on the mercy of their rulers are insane. They are not progressive, they are regressive. They are short sighted, they and blind, they do not understand history. Human ingenuity has given us a tool to ensure our basic human rights. Keeping this tool is worth the cost of 10, 20, 30, 50 thousand deaths a year and more.

How people can fail to see this baffles me.

How people come up with such BS baffles me.  100 developed countries in the world have very restrictive gun laws and are doing quite well.  We have to put up with violence because what?  The populace is paranoid?  Jesus man, get a grip already. 


GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1051 on: April 28, 2016, 01:26:43 PM »
If we ban cars we won't have any more DUI deaths either but no one seems to want to talk about that rationally.

Laws don't protect anyone.  They proscribe penalties for actions we (society) deem unacceptable.  The "gun control" side really want to take away guns from the citizens.  That is the truth no matter how you dress it up.  If they can manage to disarm the criminals FIRST, they might be able to convince the non criminals to shelve theirs.  Until then, their approach is like saying "If we get rid of our military, we won't have any wars".

Exactly.  There are criminals.  Criminals don't follow laws.  It follows therefore that there should be no laws.  None but the pistol on your hip.  Am I right, or am I right?


The "gun control" side always wants to blame the firearm for the damage and not the person holding it or not properly controlling it.  Gifford who got shot blamed the pistol, not the shooter.

Yeah!  Having a portable and deadly weapon handily available at all times will never cause a problem as long as people all behave perfectly.  And I think that we can all agree that people behave perfectly all of the time.  That's part of why there's no gun problem in the US.

Everything is awesome.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1052 on: April 28, 2016, 01:28:03 PM »
Firearms are essential to human liberty. Giving them up is insane.

Preach on brother!

You don't want to live in an oppressive hell hole and bastion of anti-liberty like the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or the Netherlands!  Those poor bastards are brutalized under the yoke of governmental oppression from morning to night!  Completely un-free in every way.

You could add about 80 other oppressed countries around the world who don't have the Freedum we do to purposely or accidently kill each other with easily accessible guns.   that's we are #1.  U-S-A, U-S-A!

However- I acknowledge your straightforward-ness on what you think is the higher value.  A lot of gun proponents will just dance around it.  But as you can tell, I think it's flawed logic.

The people in the countries you are referring to have whatever freedoms the ruling elites allow them to have. You are suffering from normalcy bias. You live in a country with reasonably benevolent rulers. You always have. You think this is normal. It is not. It is a historical anomaly. It is not normal. It is temporary. Human nature has not changed. When governments decide to stop playing nice, un-armed people have to go along with it. Armed people can do something about it. When governments collapse, unarmed people are at the mercy of their fellow man. Armed people don't have to rely on the benevolence of strangers.

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1053 on: April 28, 2016, 01:29:14 PM »

Do you propose solutions to these problems, short of confiscating all weapons in the US? Do you think that items that kill a similar number of children need to be restricted in similar ways?

We all agree guns are dangerous. We all agree there are improvements to be made. One side has offered suggestions: training in school, changes to the background check system/FFL licensing rules, prosecution of those that break the law, changes and improvements to the mental health laws of the country, criminal liability for those whose unsafe practices harm someone else.

The other side has offered: a bunch of laws that already exist, AUSTRALIA IA GREAT, confiscation/outlawing of all firearms, THINK OF THE BABIES, WHYAREYOUSCAREDANDCARRYAGUN??? and increased training requirements for people who carry in public and kill the least amount of people every year.

We look forward to your suggestions on improvements that cover new ground or offer compromise or insight into solutions that have been discussed.

You ask the pointed question and I've said it before - I don't know if I have any solution because we are so awash in guns.

How about this for a start though - get the NRA off congress and allow the ATF to enter into the 20th century and digitize their files.  How is that threatening anyone's right?

And while some proportion of gun owners would welcome some tightening rules of registration and sales - the wacko brand will not allow this to happen.  Glad to see that you acknowledge there are some issues. 

If I could wave a wand I'd change the Second Amendment to make it more clear that it applies to militia only.  But without such fantasy I say we are stuck with the current system and we need to tighen the circle a bit -- that's all I got.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1054 on: April 28, 2016, 01:33:58 PM »
Firearms are essential to human liberty. Giving them up is insane.

Preach on brother!

You don't want to live in an oppressive hell hole and bastion of anti-liberty like the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or the Netherlands!  Those poor bastards are brutalized under the yoke of governmental oppression from morning to night!  Completely un-free in every way.

You could add about 80 other oppressed countries around the world who don't have the Freedum we do to purposely or accidently kill each other with easily accessible guns.   that's we are #1.  U-S-A, U-S-A!

However- I acknowledge your straightforward-ness on what you think is the higher value.  A lot of gun proponents will just dance around it.  But as you can tell, I think it's flawed logic.

The people in the countries you are referring to have whatever freedoms the ruling elites allow them to have. You are suffering from normalcy bias. You live in a country with reasonably benevolent rulers. You always have. You think this is normal. It is not. It is a historical anomaly. It is not normal. It is temporary. Human nature has not changed. When governments decide to stop playing nice, un-armed people have to go along with it. Armed people can do something about it. When governments collapse, unarmed people are at the mercy of their fellow man. Armed people don't have to rely on the benevolence of strangers.

YES!  You could not be more right!  Ninja assassin communist Hitler is just waiting to take over every country that does not allow the general population to possess small arms.  Small arms are the only weapon that can be used to fight a corrupt government.  They are the only means of fighting an oppressive government!  No modern military can stand against a couple guys with guns and cowboy hats!

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1055 on: April 28, 2016, 01:36:18 PM »
- The US has the most guns, and hence the most instances of guns being used in acts of violence. This is true. No brainer. The sky is blue. So what?
- If there were fewer guns, there may be fewer deaths. So what?
- Statistical likelihoods again. Irrelevant.
-Maintaining the right to keep and bear arms is more important than preventing some deaths each year.
If we banned and confiscated all guns, we would probably save lots of lives. Not worth it. Firearms are essential to human liberty. Giving them up is insane.

Well, we each have our definition of insane.  How liberty=guns is anyone's guess.  Again - how did people get so paranoid and chickenshit?

I hate to quote myself, but...

I often wonder if anti-gun people understand the importance of the role of firearms when it comes to the liberty that most of us take for granted. People talk about where human rights come from in theory. It is also important to think about where they came from in practice.

Throughout (basically) all of human history, the vast majority of human beings lived in abject subjugation. The average person was basically the property of a king, or warlord, or emperor, or tribal ruler, or whatever. This situation was ALWAYS maintained using one basic mechanism; the professional soldier. In different times, places, and cultures, this looked different. The Roman Legion, the Greek Hoplite, the Byzantine Cataphract, and so on. The ruling class was able to maintain absolute control over the population by maintaining small numbers of expertly trained and well equipped soldiers. Human beings had, in practice, no rights because they could not exert their claim to human rights against rulers wielding even small numbers of professional soldiers.

Use the classic European Knight as an example. The knight was part of the ruling class. He was trained from a young age to fight. His weapons, armor, several trained warhorses and so on were incredibly expensive. By maintaining even a small number of these professional soldiers, the ruling class could maintain whatever level of control over the subject class they desired.

All the religious principles, all the philosophy, all the basic yearning people have for human dignity cannot stand up to a mounted charge from knights on horseback. Humans have always had basic, inherent rights. However, they had no way to force the ruling classes to acknowledge this fact. Five thousand righteously angry peasants with pitchforks could not stand up to 100 professionally trained and equipped knights on horseback.

Then the firearm was invented. Now, the peasant could be trained in a day to use a musket to shoot a knight off of his horse. Many people acknowledge how this changed warfare, but fewer acknowledge how it changed the relationship between the ruler and the ruled. After the proliferation of the firearm, the ruling class could no longer subjugate the vast majority of human beings with the threat of small numbers of professional soldiers. It totally changed the power dynamic. It is not a coincidence that the 18th and 19th and 20th century saw people all over the world overthrowing their rulers, or at least demanding basic human rights and dignity.

Human beings didn't suddenly figure out they should be free. They always knew it. The proliferation of the firearm gave them the ability to demand it. Human rights, dignity, and liberty in practice literally flow from the barrel of a gun. Ask, tell, make.

Those who would willingly give up the firearm and throw themselves on the mercy of their rulers are insane. They are not progressive, they are regressive. They are short sighted, they and blind, they do not understand history. Human ingenuity has given us a tool to ensure our basic human rights. Keeping this tool is worth the cost of 10, 20, 30, 50 thousand deaths a year and more.

How people can fail to see this baffles me.

How people come up with such BS baffles me.  100 developed countries in the world have very restrictive gun laws and are doing quite well.  We have to put up with violence because what?  The populace is paranoid?  Jesus man, get a grip already.

The people of those 100 developed countries are doing well because their forebears 1, 5, 10, or 20 generations ago had firearms. And they used those firearms to MAKE their rulers treat them with human dignity. Now they have given up their firearms. The only thing that maintains their "doing well" status is economic prosperity and the benevolence of their rulers. If either of those conditions cease to exist, those people will wish they hadn't given up their firearms.

How is this paranoid? This is simply an acknowledgement of how human beings have behaved and treated one another for all of recorded history, minus the last 1.5 percent of it.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1056 on: April 28, 2016, 01:39:25 PM »
Firearms are essential to human liberty. Giving them up is insane.

Preach on brother!

You don't want to live in an oppressive hell hole and bastion of anti-liberty like the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or the Netherlands!  Those poor bastards are brutalized under the yoke of governmental oppression from morning to night!  Completely un-free in every way.

You could add about 80 other oppressed countries around the world who don't have the Freedum we do to purposely or accidently kill each other with easily accessible guns.   that's we are #1.  U-S-A, U-S-A!

However- I acknowledge your straightforward-ness on what you think is the higher value.  A lot of gun proponents will just dance around it.  But as you can tell, I think it's flawed logic.

The people in the countries you are referring to have whatever freedoms the ruling elites allow them to have. You are suffering from normalcy bias. You live in a country with reasonably benevolent rulers. You always have. You think this is normal. It is not. It is a historical anomaly. It is not normal. It is temporary. Human nature has not changed. When governments decide to stop playing nice, un-armed people have to go along with it. Armed people can do something about it. When governments collapse, unarmed people are at the mercy of their fellow man. Armed people don't have to rely on the benevolence of strangers.

YES!  You could not be more right!  Ninja assassin communist Hitler is just waiting to take over every country that does not allow the general population to possess small arms.  Small arms are the only weapon that can be used to fight a corrupt government.  They are the only means of fighting an oppressive government!  No modern military can stand against a couple guys with guns and cowboy hats!

No, YOU are right! Throughout all of human history, unarmed people have done just fine! They have never been subjugated and enslaved! Our modern era isn't an anomaly, it is the way things have always been! It is permanent! You are so right!

(Typing that way makes me feel silly. How do you do it?)

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Age: 34
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1057 on: April 28, 2016, 01:45:24 PM »
I would disagree with some of your assertions.  Unfortunately the 5-4 SCOTUS decision has clarified the right of a citizen to own guns. 

But every proposed rule to help bend the curve a bit is stomped on by the NRA lobby as trying to take away guns.  Let's take one example. The ATF, by congressional rule, is not allowed to digitize their gun ownership files -- this is pretty cynical.  They keep saying "enforce the law" but then put up road blocks to do so.  You can't have it both ways.

The slippery-slope argument is pure BS.

Not really, it's based on fact. Incrementalism, especially in regards to law, is a real thing.

It's much easier to change a law in small, more acceptable increments than in politically-charged broad sweeping legislation. That's why it's important to continually protect your Constitutional rights from even small encroachments. In regards to gun control, we've compromised on gun control in the past and that hasn't stopped pushes to further the gun control argument. I won't support any efforts to do so unless we repeal previous legislation with no net reduction in our ability to exercise that right.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1058 on: April 28, 2016, 01:50:17 PM »
I would disagree with some of your assertions.  Unfortunately the 5-4 SCOTUS decision has clarified the right of a citizen to own guns. 

But every proposed rule to help bend the curve a bit is stomped on by the NRA lobby as trying to take away guns.  Let's take one example. The ATF, by congressional rule, is not allowed to digitize their gun ownership files -- this is pretty cynical.  They keep saying "enforce the law" but then put up road blocks to do so.  You can't have it both ways.

The slippery-slope argument is pure BS.

Not really, it's based on fact. Incrementalism, especially in regards to law, is a real thing.

It's much easier to change a law in small, more acceptable increments than in politically-charged broad sweeping legislation. That's why it's important to continually protect your Constitutional rights from even small encroachments. In regards to gun control, we've compromised on gun control in the past and that hasn't stopped pushes to further the gun control argument. I won't support any efforts to do so unless we repeal previous legislation with no net reduction in our ability to exercise that right.

This will never happen because the other side is not acting in good faith. They have no interest in preventing crime or violence. Their interest lies solely the "control" part. The goal is to disarm the population, reduction in violence is only the justification. (As I have said before in this thread, this applies not to the average Voter but to the Big Gun Control lobby).

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1059 on: April 28, 2016, 02:04:25 PM »
Firearms are essential to human liberty. Giving them up is insane.

Preach on brother!

You don't want to live in an oppressive hell hole and bastion of anti-liberty like the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or the Netherlands!  Those poor bastards are brutalized under the yoke of governmental oppression from morning to night!  Completely un-free in every way.

You could add about 80 other oppressed countries around the world who don't have the Freedum we do to purposely or accidently kill each other with easily accessible guns.   that's we are #1.  U-S-A, U-S-A!

However- I acknowledge your straightforward-ness on what you think is the higher value.  A lot of gun proponents will just dance around it.  But as you can tell, I think it's flawed logic.

The people in the countries you are referring to have whatever freedoms the ruling elites allow them to have. You are suffering from normalcy bias. You live in a country with reasonably benevolent rulers. You always have. You think this is normal. It is not. It is a historical anomaly. It is not normal. It is temporary. Human nature has not changed. When governments decide to stop playing nice, un-armed people have to go along with it. Armed people can do something about it. When governments collapse, unarmed people are at the mercy of their fellow man. Armed people don't have to rely on the benevolence of strangers.

YES!  You could not be more right!  Ninja assassin communist Hitler is just waiting to take over every country that does not allow the general population to possess small arms.  Small arms are the only weapon that can be used to fight a corrupt government.  They are the only means of fighting an oppressive government!  No modern military can stand against a couple guys with guns and cowboy hats!

No, YOU are right! Throughout all of human history, unarmed people have done just fine! They have never been subjugated and enslaved! Our modern era isn't an anomaly, it is the way things have always been! It is permanent! You are so right!

(Typing that way makes me feel silly. How do you do it?)

You're making a pretty good case here for the bat-shit crazy, paranoid crowd.   It always comes down to this - scared of something.  I'll bow out of unicorn land now, thanks

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1060 on: April 28, 2016, 02:15:08 PM »
Firearms are essential to human liberty. Giving them up is insane.

Preach on brother!

You don't want to live in an oppressive hell hole and bastion of anti-liberty like the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or the Netherlands!  Those poor bastards are brutalized under the yoke of governmental oppression from morning to night!  Completely un-free in every way.

You could add about 80 other oppressed countries around the world who don't have the Freedum we do to purposely or accidently kill each other with easily accessible guns.   that's we are #1.  U-S-A, U-S-A!

However- I acknowledge your straightforward-ness on what you think is the higher value.  A lot of gun proponents will just dance around it.  But as you can tell, I think it's flawed logic.

The people in the countries you are referring to have whatever freedoms the ruling elites allow them to have. You are suffering from normalcy bias. You live in a country with reasonably benevolent rulers. You always have. You think this is normal. It is not. It is a historical anomaly. It is not normal. It is temporary. Human nature has not changed. When governments decide to stop playing nice, un-armed people have to go along with it. Armed people can do something about it. When governments collapse, unarmed people are at the mercy of their fellow man. Armed people don't have to rely on the benevolence of strangers.

YES!  You could not be more right!  Ninja assassin communist Hitler is just waiting to take over every country that does not allow the general population to possess small arms.  Small arms are the only weapon that can be used to fight a corrupt government.  They are the only means of fighting an oppressive government!  No modern military can stand against a couple guys with guns and cowboy hats!

No, YOU are right! Throughout all of human history, unarmed people have done just fine! They have never been subjugated and enslaved! Our modern era isn't an anomaly, it is the way things have always been! It is permanent! You are so right!

(Typing that way makes me feel silly. How do you do it?)

You're making a pretty good case here for the bat-shit crazy, paranoid crowd.   It always comes down to this - scared of something.  I'll bow out of unicorn land now, thanks

So is it your assertion that the relatively stable and benevolent democracies that we see today and have for the past century or two are... permanent? And if anything will only get... better?

What historical precedent do you base this opinion on?

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3352
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1061 on: April 28, 2016, 02:18:40 PM »
Firearms are essential to human liberty. Giving them up is insane.

Preach on brother!

You don't want to live in an oppressive hell hole and bastion of anti-liberty like the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or the Netherlands!  Those poor bastards are brutalized under the yoke of governmental oppression from morning to night!  Completely un-free in every way.

You could add about 80 other oppressed countries around the world who don't have the Freedum we do to purposely or accidently kill each other with easily accessible guns.   that's we are #1.  U-S-A, U-S-A!

However- I acknowledge your straightforward-ness on what you think is the higher value.  A lot of gun proponents will just dance around it.  But as you can tell, I think it's flawed logic.

The people in the countries you are referring to have whatever freedoms the ruling elites allow them to have. You are suffering from normalcy bias. You live in a country with reasonably benevolent rulers. You always have. You think this is normal. It is not. It is a historical anomaly. It is not normal. It is temporary. Human nature has not changed. When governments decide to stop playing nice, un-armed people have to go along with it. Armed people can do something about it. When governments collapse, unarmed people are at the mercy of their fellow man. Armed people don't have to rely on the benevolence of strangers.

YES!  You could not be more right!  Ninja assassin communist Hitler is just waiting to take over every country that does not allow the general population to possess small arms.  Small arms are the only weapon that can be used to fight a corrupt government.  They are the only means of fighting an oppressive government!  No modern military can stand against a couple guys with guns and cowboy hats!

No, YOU are right! Throughout all of human history, unarmed people have done just fine! They have never been subjugated and enslaved! Our modern era isn't an anomaly, it is the way things have always been! It is permanent! You are so right!

(Typing that way makes me feel silly. How do you do it?)

You're making a pretty good case here for the bat-shit crazy, paranoid crowd.  It always comes down to this - scared of something.  I'll bow out of unicorn land now, thanks

That's incredibly ironic coming from someone who claims to be afraid of people who legally obtained concealed carry permits (and who also commit an incredibly small percentage of overall crime)...

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1062 on: April 28, 2016, 02:23:25 PM »

Do you propose solutions to these problems, short of confiscating all weapons in the US? Do you think that items that kill a similar number of children need to be restricted in similar ways?

We all agree guns are dangerous. We all agree there are improvements to be made. One side has offered suggestions: training in school, changes to the background check system/FFL licensing rules, prosecution of those that break the law, changes and improvements to the mental health laws of the country, criminal liability for those whose unsafe practices harm someone else.

The other side has offered: a bunch of laws that already exist, AUSTRALIA IA GREAT, confiscation/outlawing of all firearms, THINK OF THE BABIES, WHYAREYOUSCAREDANDCARRYAGUN??? and increased training requirements for people who carry in public and kill the least amount of people every year.

We look forward to your suggestions on improvements that cover new ground or offer compromise or insight into solutions that have been discussed.

You ask the pointed question and I've said it before - I don't know if I have any solution because we are so awash in guns.

How about this for a start though - get the NRA off congress and allow the ATF to enter into the 20th century and digitize their files.  How is that threatening anyone's right?

And while some proportion of gun owners would welcome some tightening rules of registration and sales - the wacko brand will not allow this to happen.  Glad to see that you acknowledge there are some issues. 

If I could wave a wand I'd change the Second Amendment to make it more clear that it applies to militia only.  But without such fantasy I say we are stuck with the current system and we need to tighen the circle a bit -- that's all I got.

Ok. So you just want a thread to vent about things you wish you could change but feel you can't. That's ok. Please don't do it in this thread, though. That's complainy-pants, and you get 1 facepunch for that.

As far as the actual suggestions you've made:  Digitizing records. - I see no issue with this. I'd like more information on what exactly their records cover so that I could make a fully informed comment, but being hamstrung in their effectiveness is not helping anyone. This would be a great compromise to get behind, that would probably benefit everyone. It is my understanding that the ATF is prohibited from creating any digital registry, not prohibited from putting just any files on the computer, so some research may show that you actually have what you say you want, in that regard. I am not an expert on that topic however.

2 - The majority is not held hostage by the wacko fringe. The wacko fringe is just the most vocal - they are not the most powerful.  The majority think the laws are pretty well balanced where they are, and would like them to loosen up a bit in places. This is what is happening - look at D.C. and Chicago, the supreme court ruling etc. and the trends in gun laws in those areas.  They're getting more lax. Crime rates are still dropping, and ccw holders are not duking it out in the street at noon. The world still spins...


Guitarstv - we've had productive exchanges on this topic before. I have appreciated it.  You are capable of acting better than this - your trolling is not helpful, mature, funny, insightful or appreciated.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Tom Bri

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 514
  • Location: Small Town, Flyover Country
  • More just cheap, than Mustachian
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1063 on: April 28, 2016, 03:35:34 PM »
Here's a few facts everyone seems to agree on - or at least those not in denial of the facts:

--The US has the highest gun violence among 80 developed countries.  Sure - you can pick out ones such as Guatemeula say -but do we need to stoop as low as to pick a country challenged by civil war for decades and now a non-functional government to say --"see, really, we're not the worst!!   That is a pretty low threshold to choose for comparison.

--There is a scientifically proven relationship between the amount of guns and circulation and violence.   The counter seems to be yea- the more cars there are the more deaths.  But generally not by someone who gets pissed at his girlfriend, neighbor, or whoever on the road and needs to "set it straight".  If a gun weren't available for a quick solution there would be less deaths.  Yes, it is that simple.

--Access to guns for the mentally ill.  Yea - I know, enforce the laws.  But the NRA has their boot on the neck of the ATF and other agencies specifically not letting them have access to the data that would help this.  Very cynical.

--Accidents by children.  WTF?  "these folks were acting irresponsibly" is the phrase. Yea, no shit.  You have a gun in the house and it is statistically much more likely that you will kill grandma, your kid will shoot themselves, your kid will shoot his friend, or your kid will shoot a parent than you will use it to kill some boogeyman.

These are the facts.  I can't say I have an answer because we are just awash in guns in this country and with the corresponding level of violence.

And I don't know how we got so darn chickenshit scared that we feel we need to arm ourselves in such a manner.

Some of your 'facts', are not. The first one is clearly irrelevant. Who care about 'gun violence'. Isn't it the rate of actual violence that counts? The US is not a particularly violent country, by that standard. I like the way you dehumanize all the South American and African countries, too. Their violence doesn't matter, because, well, I am not sure what you mean. Is it because they are poor, so you don't consider them fully human and their deaths don't matter? Or is it their skin color?

The second one is clearly false, as any review of gun ownership levels and violence levels will show. Canada has a high levels of gun ownership, and rather low levels of violence, for example. Canada's gun numbers are not too much lower then the US, about 26% of households, to the US in the low 30s. In fact, if you do a comparison, worldwide, you will find that countries with liberal gun laws, like Europe, and Canada and the US, where it is rather simple to get guns, and ownership is fairly common, tend to be the least violent, but countries with very strict gun laws, like all of the Caribbean, Central and South America, tend to have astoundingly high violence. Japan is one of the few exceptions.

Links to info on the web HAVE ALREADY BEEN POSTED ON THIS THREAD to verify this information.








Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1064 on: April 28, 2016, 06:11:35 PM »
Here's a few facts everyone seems to agree on - or at least those not in denial of the facts:

--The US has the highest gun violence among 80 developed countries.  Sure - you can pick out ones such as Guatemeula say -but do we need to stoop as low as to pick a country challenged by civil war for decades and now a non-functional government to say --"see, really, we're not the worst!!   That is a pretty low threshold to choose for comparison.

--There is a scientifically proven relationship between the amount of guns and circulation and violence.   The counter seems to be yea- the more cars there are the more deaths.  But generally not by someone who gets pissed at his girlfriend, neighbor, or whoever on the road and needs to "set it straight".  If a gun weren't available for a quick solution there would be less deaths.  Yes, it is that simple.

--Access to guns for the mentally ill.  Yea - I know, enforce the laws.  But the NRA has their boot on the neck of the ATF and other agencies specifically not letting them have access to the data that would help this.  Very cynical.

--Accidents by children.  WTF?  "these folks were acting irresponsibly" is the phrase. Yea, no shit.  You have a gun in the house and it is statistically much more likely that you will kill grandma, your kid will shoot themselves, your kid will shoot his friend, or your kid will shoot a parent than you will use it to kill some boogeyman.

These are the facts.  I can't say I have an answer because we are just awash in guns in this country and with the corresponding level of violence.

And I don't know how we got so darn chickenshit scared that we feel we need to arm ourselves in such a manner.

Some of your 'facts', are not. The first one is clearly irrelevant. Who care about 'gun violence'. Isn't it the rate of actual violence that counts? The US is not a particularly violent country, by that standard. I like the way you dehumanize all the South American and African countries, too. Their violence doesn't matter, because, well, I am not sure what you mean. Is it because they are poor, so you don't consider them fully human and their deaths don't matter? Or is it their skin color?

The second one is clearly false, as any review of gun ownership levels and violence levels will show. Canada has a high levels of gun ownership, and rather low levels of violence, for example. Canada's gun numbers are not too much lower then the US, about 26% of households, to the US in the low 30s. In fact, if you do a comparison, worldwide, you will find that countries with liberal gun laws, like Europe, and Canada and the US, where it is rather simple to get guns, and ownership is fairly common, tend to be the least violent, but countries with very strict gun laws, like all of the Caribbean, Central and South America, tend to have astoundingly high violence. Japan is one of the few exceptions.

Links to info on the web HAVE ALREADY BEEN POSTED ON THIS THREAD to verify this information.

Great points. If one looks at overall violent crime rate, it does seem to be uncorrelated to gun ownership, or gun availability. UK has banned guns, but their violent crime rate has increased even as their gun ownership, and gun crime, dropped.  Again, with the goal posts: should we be concerned with all violent crime, or just gun crime? Is Japan a utopia, because they have almost zero gun crime? Or does their high suicide rate and other factors mean that they also have work to do in their society?
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

ooeei

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 710
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1065 on: April 29, 2016, 12:37:06 PM »
No modern military can stand against a couple guys with guns and cowboy hats!

Our military seemed to have a pretty damn hard time in the Middle East against some dudes with AK-47s.  Yeah we won, but it sure wasn't easy.  You would think with a world class army we could've just mowed them over in a few weeks.  Instead we spent multiple years and billions of dollars on the war.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find a country who could take over the US even without our army.  I can't say the same for most of Western Europe or Japan.  Australia would be a bit tougher, but still significantly easier than the US.

Yes yes, I hear you.  These are all things that probably won't happen in our lifetime.  But will they happen ever for the rest of time?  I suspect that someday there will be a benefit that comes from the average US citizen being armed.  Maybe it won't be in the next 10 years, or 50 years, or even 100 years, but based on history I don't want to be the unarmed one when the music stops.  Things generally do not go well for them.



Then on another point, when I'm 70 years old and my house gets broken into, what am I supposed to do?  Obviously I'll try to run, but I probably won't be all that quick.  If the robber is younger than 60 I'm at a major disadvantage, not to mention my wife at the time.  As a relatively large, young man I am not all that worried about personal consequences to me of a gun free society, as an elderly husband I'm not sure I'll be that psyched about it.

Personally I think maybe we should just put constantly running cameras on everyone's chests all the time.  This would surely prevent crime better than a gun ban, and as long as you're following the law you have nothing to worry about.  Sure, there's the whole right to privacy, but think of the child molestation and domestic violence we could stop!  We all know the writers of the constitution never would have put that in there if they'd known how much crime we could prevent in the modern era with the tools we have.  As long as only the government is in control of the video it will all work out for the best.  Think of the children! 

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

The ability to defend oneself is essential to liberty.  A firearm is the great equalizer.  It's the only way my Grandma will ever have a chance against anyone under the age of 80.

« Last Edit: April 29, 2016, 12:46:22 PM by ooeei »

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1066 on: April 29, 2016, 01:57:50 PM »
No modern military can stand against a couple guys with guns and cowboy hats!

Our military seemed to have a pretty damn hard time in the Middle East against some dudes with AK-47s.  Yeah we won, but it sure wasn't easy.  You would think with a world class army we could've just mowed them over in a few weeks.  Instead we spent multiple years and billions of dollars on the war.

I'm sorry to ruffle your cowboy hat, but those 'dudes with AK-47s' really aren't comparable.  They regularly use explosives, fully automatic weapons, RPGs, artillery, tanks, and armored vehicles (http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/17/insight-into-how-insurgents-fought-in-iraq/?_r=0).  Otherwise they wouldn't be much of a threat.  Much of their weaponry was taken from Saddam's stockpiles around the country, some of it is surplus Russian stuff.  An awful lot of the stuff was stolen from the supplies that the US brought in while inflicting your devastating war of freedom.

Yes, I'm aware of the fears of the existential threat of ninja assassin communist Hitler taking over the US.  But it's a ridiculous concern.  How many first world countries have been invaded since WWII again?  What country are you expecting to invade the US, and why do you think that when the guys you pay to deal with that (the US military) fail, a few hand guns and rifles are going to help?

I'm also aware of the mythic gun totin' senior concept.  These people have no chance without the loving embrace of cold steel against the many thieves and robbers clawing at their doorways and windows every night.  It's important to never let the problems of aging (poor coordination, hearing, eyesight, and failing memory (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10522950, http://newoldage.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/14/guns-in-frail-hands/ ) disturb this myth.  Granny will instantly awaken, instantly find and remember how to use her weapon, and repel those damned ninjas.  She'll never go crazy and fire at that black mailman, kill herself in a fit of depression (https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/news/story/282/handguns-in-home-boost-suicide-risk-among-elderly.aspx), or accidentally shoot herself or someone else (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/28/elderly-woman-shot-dead-at-essex-care-homehttp://www.yourhoustonnews.com/courier/news/man-accidentally-shoots-himself-at-flemings-steakhouse-in-the-woodlands/article_7d3dc187-2cd1-5ec5-bf57-e6d2d9f6f7ec.html).

All people give up a certain amount of liberty to live in a society.  I'd really hope that you look after your grandmother better, so that she doesn't feel the need to arm herself against anyone under the age of 80.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3352
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1067 on: April 29, 2016, 02:05:46 PM »
No modern military can stand against a couple guys with guns and cowboy hats!

Our military seemed to have a pretty damn hard time in the Middle East against some dudes with AK-47s.  Yeah we won, but it sure wasn't easy.  You would think with a world class army we could've just mowed them over in a few weeks.  Instead we spent multiple years and billions of dollars on the war.

I'm sorry to ruffle your cowboy hat, but those 'dudes with AK-47s' really aren't comparable.  They regularly use explosives, fully automatic weapons, RPGs, artillery, tanks, and armored vehicles (http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/17/insight-into-how-insurgents-fought-in-iraq/?_r=0).  Otherwise they wouldn't be much of a threat.  Much of their weaponry was taken from Saddam's stockpiles around the country, some of it is surplus Russian stuff.  An awful lot of the stuff was stolen from the supplies that the US brought in while inflicting your devastating war of freedom.

Yes, I'm aware of the fears of the existential threat of ninja assassin communist Hitler taking over the US.  But it's a ridiculous concern.  How many first world countries have been invaded since WWII again?  What country are you expecting to invade the US, and why do you think that when the guys you pay to deal with that (the US military) fail, a few hand guns and rifles are going to help?

I'm also aware of the mythic gun totin' senior concept.  These people have no chance without the loving embrace of cold steel against the many thieves and robbers clawing at their doorways and windows every night.  It's important to never let the problems of aging (poor coordination, hearing, eyesight, and failing memory (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10522950, http://newoldage.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/14/guns-in-frail-hands/ ) disturb this myth.  Granny will instantly awaken, instantly find and remember how to use her weapon, and repel those damned ninjas.  She'll never go crazy and fire at that black mailman, kill herself in a fit of depression (https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/news/story/282/handguns-in-home-boost-suicide-risk-among-elderly.aspx), or accidentally shoot herself or someone else (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/28/elderly-woman-shot-dead-at-essex-care-homehttp://www.yourhoustonnews.com/courier/news/man-accidentally-shoots-himself-at-flemings-steakhouse-in-the-woodlands/article_7d3dc187-2cd1-5ec5-bf57-e6d2d9f6f7ec.html).

All people give up a certain amount of liberty to live in a society.  I'd really hope that you look after your grandmother better, so that she doesn't feel the need to arm herself against anyone under the age of 80.

Good thing that other countries, such as the UK, have laws in place so nothing like that happens...?

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 566
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1068 on: April 29, 2016, 02:15:21 PM »
No modern military can stand against a couple guys with guns and cowboy hats!

Our military seemed to have a pretty damn hard time in the Middle East against some dudes with AK-47s.  Yeah we won, but it sure wasn't easy.  You would think with a world class army we could've just mowed them over in a few weeks.  Instead we spent multiple years and billions of dollars on the war.

I'm sorry to ruffle your cowboy hat, but those 'dudes with AK-47s' really aren't comparable.  They regularly use explosives, fully automatic weapons, RPGs, artillery, tanks, and armored vehicles (http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/17/insight-into-how-insurgents-fought-in-iraq/?_r=0).  Otherwise they wouldn't be much of a threat.  Much of their weaponry was taken from Saddam's stockpiles around the country, some of it is surplus Russian stuff.  An awful lot of the stuff was stolen from the supplies that the US brought in while inflicting your devastating war of freedom.

Yes, I'm aware of the fears of the existential threat of ninja assassin communist Hitler taking over the US.  But it's a ridiculous concern.  How many first world countries have been invaded since WWII again?  What country are you expecting to invade the US, and why do you think that when the guys you pay to deal with that (the US military) fail, a few hand guns and rifles are going to help?

I'm also aware of the mythic gun totin' senior concept.  These people have no chance without the loving embrace of cold steel against the many thieves and robbers clawing at their doorways and windows every night.  It's important to never let the problems of aging (poor coordination, hearing, eyesight, and failing memory (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10522950, http://newoldage.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/14/guns-in-frail-hands/ ) disturb this myth.  Granny will instantly awaken, instantly find and remember how to use her weapon, and repel those damned ninjas.  She'll never go crazy and fire at that black mailman, kill herself in a fit of depression (https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/news/story/282/handguns-in-home-boost-suicide-risk-among-elderly.aspx), or accidentally shoot herself or someone else (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/28/elderly-woman-shot-dead-at-essex-care-homehttp://www.yourhoustonnews.com/courier/news/man-accidentally-shoots-himself-at-flemings-steakhouse-in-the-woodlands/article_7d3dc187-2cd1-5ec5-bf57-e6d2d9f6f7ec.html).

All people give up a certain amount of liberty to live in a society.  I'd really hope that you look after your grandmother better, so that she doesn't feel the need to arm herself against anyone under the age of 80.

Straw man, straw man, knock him down, fast as you can.

It is not just external oppressors that we must remain vigilant against. You're in denial if you think the Stalins and Hitlers of the world are exclusively in the past.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1069 on: April 29, 2016, 06:14:01 PM »
Quote from: JLee
Good thing that other countries, such as the UK, have laws in place so nothing like that happens...?

Arming the elderly is generally a bad idea, regardless of what country you're in.  Arguing that the elderly desperately need guns is pretty difficult to support, beyond a 'rah rah grannies gonna shoot some robbers' gut reaction.


[quote author=GuitarStv lI always like to debate an alternative way of looking at things, and while I'll debate a side furiously . . . it's all in good fun.  I have had to change my thinking about stuff now and again.ink=topic=51871.msg1068036#msg1068036 date=1461872038]
 No modern military can stand against a couple guys with guns and cowboy hats!

Our military seemed to have a pretty damn hard time in the Middle East against some dudes with AK-47s.  Yeah we won, but it sure wasn't easy.  You would think with a world class army we could've just mowed them over in a few weeks.  Instead we spent multiple years and billions of dollars on the war.

I'm sorry to ruffle your cowboy hat, but those 'dudes with AK-47s' really aren't comparable.  They regularly use explosives, fully automatic weapons, RPGs, artillery, tanks, and armored vehicles (http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/17/insight-into-how-insurgents-fought-in-iraq/?_r=0).  Otherwise they wouldn't be much of a threat.  Much of their weaponry was taken from Saddam's stockpiles around the country, some of it is surplus Russian stuff.  An awful lot of the stuff was stolen from the supplies that the US brought in while inflicting your devastating war of freedom.

Yes, I'm aware of the fears of the existential threat of ninja assassin communist Hitler taking over the US.  But it's a ridiculous concern.  How many first world countries have been invaded since WWII again?  What country are you expecting to invade the US, and why do you think that when the guys you pay to deal with that (the US military) fail, a few hand guns and rifles are going to help?

I'm also aware of the mythic gun totin' senior concept.  These people have no chance without the loving embrace of cold steel against the many thieves and robbers clawing at their doorways and windows every night.  It's important to never let the problems of aging (poor coordination, hearing, eyesight, and failing memory (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10522950, http://newoldage.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/14/guns-in-frail-hands/ ) disturb this myth.  Granny will instantly awaken, instantly find and remember how to use her weapon, and repel thI always like to debate an alternative way of looking at things, and while I'll debate a side furiously . . . it's all in good fun.  I have had to change my thinking about stuff now and again.ose damned ninjas.  She'll never go crazy and fire at that black mailman, kill herself in a fit of depression (https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/news/story/282/handguns-in-home-boost-suicide-risk-among-elderly.aspx), or accidentally shoot herself or someone else (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/28/elderly-woman-shot-dead-at-essex-care-homehttp://www.yourhoustonnews.com/courier/news/man-accidentally-shoots-himself-at-flemings-steakhouse-in-the-woodlands/article_7d3dc187-2cd1-5ec5-bf57-e6d2d9f6f7ec.html).

All people give up a certain amoGood thing that other countries, such as the UK, have laws in place so nothing like that happens...?unt of liberty to live in a society.  I'd really hope that you look after your grandmother better, so that she doesn't feel the need to arm herself against anyone under the age of 80.
I always like to debate an alternative way of looking at things, and while I'll debate a side furiously . . . it's all in good fun.  I have had to change my thinking about stuff now and again.

Straw man, straw man, knock him down, fast as you can.

It is not just external oppressors that we must remain vigilant against. You're in denial if you think the Stalins and Hitlers of the world are exclusively in the past.
[/quote]

I don't think that the Stalins and Hitlers of the world are exclusively in the past.  I do think that the nature of the way that governments have been set up to run in first world countries largely keeps their threat at bay.  Third world, hell yes . . . I could rattle off a dozen names without thinking about it.  Can you list any first world oppressors?

The modern world doesn't really work on a 'might is right' I'm gonna conquer shit principal any more.  If you want to be afraid of your government, you need to be afraid of things that are going on right now that nobody cares about.  Illegally detaining people without a fair trial, without evidence, and without legal representation?  Yep.  Gitmo.  Spying and lying on every US citizen?  Yep.  Snowden.  Secret no-fly lists.

Does the average American give a shit?  Nope.

A big evil government doesn't need to goose step in some nasty, scary troops to a place.  They already own your ass.  Every phone call you make is tracked, every email you send is recorded, your credit card and bank information is available to them, and there are technicians working around the clock keeping an eye on you.  Already.  When are the guns going to start helping?  What exactly are you waiting for when the time for revolution is so clearly now?

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1070 on: April 30, 2016, 12:49:18 PM »
Agreed.  But nobody needs a gun for the revolution you're talking about.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1071 on: May 02, 2016, 04:53:48 AM »
No modern military can stand against a couple guys with guns and cowboy hats!

Our military seemed to have a pretty damn hard time in the Middle East against some dudes with AK-47s.  Yeah we won, but it sure wasn't easy.  You would think with a world class army we could've just mowed them over in a few weeks.  Instead we spent multiple years and billions of dollars on the war.

I'm sorry to ruffle your cowboy hat, but those 'dudes with AK-47s' really aren't comparable.  They regularly use explosives, fully automatic weapons, RPGs, artillery, tanks, and armored vehicles (http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/17/insight-into-how-insurgents-fought-in-iraq/?_r=0).  Otherwise they wouldn't be much of a threat.  Much of their weaponry was taken from Saddam's stockpiles around the country, some of it is surplus Russian stuff.  An awful lot of the stuff was stolen from the supplies that the US brought in while inflicting your devastating war of freedom.

Yes, I'm aware of the fears of the existential threat of ninja assassin communist Hitler taking over the US.  But it's a ridiculous concern.  How many first world countries have been invaded since WWII again?  What country are you expecting to invade the US, and why do you think that when the guys you pay to deal with that (the US military) fail, a few hand guns and rifles are going to help?

I'm also aware of the mythic gun totin' senior concept.  These people have no chance without the loving embrace of cold steel against the many thieves and robbers clawing at their doorways and windows every night.  It's important to never let the problems of aging (poor coordination, hearing, eyesight, and failing memory (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10522950, http://newoldage.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/14/guns-in-frail-hands/ ) disturb this myth.  Granny will instantly awaken, instantly find and remember how to use her weapon, and repel those damned ninjas.  She'll never go crazy and fire at that black mailman, kill herself in a fit of depression (https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/news/story/282/handguns-in-home-boost-suicide-risk-among-elderly.aspx), or accidentally shoot herself or someone else (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/28/elderly-woman-shot-dead-at-essex-care-homehttp://www.yourhoustonnews.com/courier/news/man-accidentally-shoots-himself-at-flemings-steakhouse-in-the-woodlands/article_7d3dc187-2cd1-5ec5-bf57-e6d2d9f6f7ec.html).

All people give up a certain amount of liberty to live in a society.  I'd really hope that you look after your grandmother better, so that she doesn't feel the need to arm herself against anyone under the age of 80.

Good thing that other countries, such as the UK, have laws in place so nothing like that happens...?

Good point. If these accidents still occur in modern societies where guns have been tightly regulated, then we need to find a different approach to solve the issue.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

ooeei

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 710
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1072 on: May 02, 2016, 06:31:33 AM »
No modern military can stand against a couple guys with guns and cowboy hats!

Our military seemed to have a pretty damn hard time in the Middle East against some dudes with AK-47s.  Yeah we won, but it sure wasn't easy.  You would think with a world class army we could've just mowed them over in a few weeks.  Instead we spent multiple years and billions of dollars on the war.

I'm sorry to ruffle your cowboy hat, but those 'dudes with AK-47s' really aren't comparable.  They regularly use explosives, fully automatic weapons, RPGs, artillery, tanks, and armored vehicles (http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/17/insight-into-how-insurgents-fought-in-iraq/?_r=0).  Otherwise they wouldn't be much of a threat.  Much of their weaponry was taken from Saddam's stockpiles around the country, some of it is surplus Russian stuff.  An awful lot of the stuff was stolen from the supplies that the US brought in while inflicting your devastating war of freedom.

So they didn't need the guns?  I guess they probably didn't use them then right?

Quote
Yes, I'm aware of the fears of the existential threat of ninja assassin communist Hitler taking over the US.  But it's a ridiculous concern.  How many first world countries have been invaded since WWII again?  What country are you expecting to invade the US, and why do you think that when the guys you pay to deal with that (the US military) fail, a few hand guns and rifles are going to help?

70 years since an army attacked us and you're satisfied it's going to last forever (despite us fighting people all over the world since then).  70 years, really?  Does your strategy only apply to the US?  Should people in other countries keep guns until they've been invasion free for 70 years?

I'm not expecting anyone to do it, because we've got an army we pay a ton for, and a few million citizens with firearms.  Then again I don't think anyone was expecting Japan to bomb one of our military bases in the 40's.  I don't expect anyone to break into my house at night, but I still lock my door.

Quote
I'm also aware of the mythic gun totin' senior concept.  These people have no chance without the loving embrace of cold steel against the many thieves and robbers clawing at their doorways and windows every night.  It's important to never let the problems of aging (poor coordination, hearing, eyesight, and failing memory (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10522950, http://newoldage.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/14/guns-in-frail-hands/ ) disturb this myth.  Granny will instantly awaken, instantly find and remember how to use her weapon, and repel those damned ninjas.  She'll never go crazy and fire at that black mailman, kill herself in a fit of depression (https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/news/story/282/handguns-in-home-boost-suicide-risk-among-elderly.aspx), or accidentally shoot herself or someone else (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/28/elderly-woman-shot-dead-at-essex-care-homehttp://www.yourhoustonnews.com/courier/news/man-accidentally-shoots-himself-at-flemings-steakhouse-in-the-woodlands/article_7d3dc187-2cd1-5ec5-bf57-e6d2d9f6f7ec.html).

All people give up a certain amount of liberty to live in a society.  I'd really hope that you look after your grandmother better, so that she doesn't feel the need to arm herself against anyone under the age of 80.

Yes, we give up a certain amount of liberty to live in society, I suppose you and I just have different cutoffs for where that is.  Would you be up for mandatory body cameras on everyone?  That would surely save more lives than restricting guns. 

Unfortunately for grandma I can't watch her 24/7.  She certainly shouldn't use a gun if she's not capable, the same way she shouldn't drive a car.  If she IS capable, then I think she should be allowed to defend herself effectively.

I truly hope you're right and no private citizens ever need to be armed again for the rest of time.  History tells us that's probably not going to happen, but then again who knows.  Personally I think giving some power to the people rather than the government will help keep the government in its place.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2016, 06:44:29 AM by ooeei »

ooeei

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 710
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1073 on: May 02, 2016, 06:48:54 AM »
Quote from: JLee
Good thing that other countries, such as the UK, have laws in place so nothing like that happens...?

Arming the elderly is generally a bad idea, regardless of what country you're in.  Arguing that the elderly desperately need guns is pretty difficult to support, beyond a 'rah rah grannies gonna shoot some robbers' gut reaction.


[quote author=GuitarStv lI always like to debate an alternative way of looking at things, and while I'll debate a side furiously . . . it's all in good fun.  I have had to change my thinking about stuff now and again.ink=topic=51871.msg1068036#msg1068036 date=1461872038]
 No modern military can stand against a couple guys with guns and cowboy hats!

Our military seemed to have a pretty damn hard time in the Middle East against some dudes with AK-47s.  Yeah we won, but it sure wasn't easy.  You would think with a world class army we could've just mowed them over in a few weeks.  Instead we spent multiple years and billions of dollars on the war.

I'm sorry to ruffle your cowboy hat, but those 'dudes with AK-47s' really aren't comparable.  They regularly use explosives, fully automatic weapons, RPGs, artillery, tanks, and armored vehicles (http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/17/insight-into-how-insurgents-fought-in-iraq/?_r=0).  Otherwise they wouldn't be much of a threat.  Much of their weaponry was taken from Saddam's stockpiles around the country, some of it is surplus Russian stuff.  An awful lot of the stuff was stolen from the supplies that the US brought in while inflicting your devastating war of freedom.

Yes, I'm aware of the fears of the existential threat of ninja assassin communist Hitler taking over the US.  But it's a ridiculous concern.  How many first world countries have been invaded since WWII again?  What country are you expecting to invade the US, and why do you think that when the guys you pay to deal with that (the US military) fail, a few hand guns and rifles are going to help?

I'm also aware of the mythic gun totin' senior concept.  These people have no chance without the loving embrace of cold steel against the many thieves and robbers clawing at their doorways and windows every night.  It's important to never let the problems of aging (poor coordination, hearing, eyesight, and failing memory (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10522950, http://newoldage.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/14/guns-in-frail-hands/ ) disturb this myth.  Granny will instantly awaken, instantly find and remember how to use her weapon, and repel thI always like to debate an alternative way of looking at things, and while I'll debate a side furiously . . . it's all in good fun.  I have had to change my thinking about stuff now and again.ose damned ninjas.  She'll never go crazy and fire at that black mailman, kill herself in a fit of depression (https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/news/story/282/handguns-in-home-boost-suicide-risk-among-elderly.aspx), or accidentally shoot herself or someone else (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/28/elderly-woman-shot-dead-at-essex-care-homehttp://www.yourhoustonnews.com/courier/news/man-accidentally-shoots-himself-at-flemings-steakhouse-in-the-woodlands/article_7d3dc187-2cd1-5ec5-bf57-e6d2d9f6f7ec.html).

All people give up a certain amoGood thing that other countries, such as the UK, have laws in place so nothing like that happens...?unt of liberty to live in a society.  I'd really hope that you look after your grandmother better, so that she doesn't feel the need to arm herself against anyone under the age of 80.
I always like to debate an alternative way of looking at things, and while I'll debate a side furiously . . . it's all in good fun.  I have had to change my thinking about stuff now and again.

Straw man, straw man, knock him down, fast as you can.

It is not just external oppressors that we must remain vigilant against. You're in denial if you think the Stalins and Hitlers of the world are exclusively in the past.

I don't think that the Stalins and Hitlers of the world are exclusively in the past.  I do think that the nature of the way that governments have been set up to run in first world countries largely keeps their threat at bay.  Third world, hell yes . . . I could rattle off a dozen names without thinking about it.  Can you list any first world oppressors?

The modern world doesn't really work on a 'might is right' I'm gonna conquer shit principal any more.  If you want to be afraid of your government, you need to be afraid of things that are going on right now that nobody cares about.  Illegally detaining people without a fair trial, without evidence, and without legal representation?  Yep.  Gitmo.  Spying and lying on every US citizen?  Yep.  Snowden.  Secret no-fly lists.

Does the average American give a shit?  Nope.

A big evil government doesn't need to goose step in some nasty, scary troops to a place.  They already own your ass.  Every phone call you make is tracked, every email you send is recorded, your credit card and bank information is available to them, and there are technicians working around the clock keeping an eye on you.  Already.  When are the guns going to start helping?  What exactly are you waiting for when the time for revolution is so clearly now?
[/quote]

So your philosophy is "there are other ways for governments to screw you, so might as well get rid of the guns?"  No one said guns fix everything. 

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1074 on: May 02, 2016, 07:08:46 AM »
No modern military can stand against a couple guys with guns and cowboy hats!

Our military seemed to have a pretty damn hard time in the Middle East against some dudes with AK-47s.  Yeah we won, but it sure wasn't easy.  You would think with a world class army we could've just mowed them over in a few weeks.  Instead we spent multiple years and billions of dollars on the war.

I'm sorry to ruffle your cowboy hat, but those 'dudes with AK-47s' really aren't comparable.  They regularly use explosives, fully automatic weapons, RPGs, artillery, tanks, and armored vehicles (http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/17/insight-into-how-insurgents-fought-in-iraq/?_r=0).  Otherwise they wouldn't be much of a threat.  Much of their weaponry was taken from Saddam's stockpiles around the country, some of it is surplus Russian stuff.  An awful lot of the stuff was stolen from the supplies that the US brought in while inflicting your devastating war of freedom.

So they didn't need the guns?  I guess they probably didn't use them then right?

No, absolutely they used and needed guns.  But if guns were the only weapons used they wouldn't be any real threat at all.


Quote
Yes, I'm aware of the fears of the existential threat of ninja assassin communist Hitler taking over the US.  But it's a ridiculous concern.  How many first world countries have been invaded since WWII again?  What country are you expecting to invade the US, and why do you think that when the guys you pay to deal with that (the US military) fail, a few hand guns and rifles are going to help?

70 years since an army attacked us and you're satisfied it's going to last forever (despite us fighting people all over the world since then).  70 years, really?  Does your strategy only apply to the US?  Should people in other countries keep guns until they've been invasion free for 70 years?

I'm not expecting anyone to do it, because we've got an army we pay a ton for, and a few million citizens with firearms.  Then again I don't think anyone was expecting Japan to bomb one of our military bases in the 40's.  I don't expect anyone to break into my house at night, but I still lock my door.

I'm responding specifically to the point that was brought up - the importance of keeping an armed populace in the US to repel enemy invaders.  Which is silly.

The last time a foreign army attacked the US to invade, it was before the American civil war.  I suspect that the Brits have given up on their colony at this point, so you're probably safe from them.  You can't really count Japan bombing Pearl Harbour in this conversation . . . Having a well armed population does nothing at all to protect against bombing runs.




Quote
I'm also aware of the mythic gun totin' senior concept.  These people have no chance without the loving embrace of cold steel against the many thieves and robbers clawing at their doorways and windows every night.  It's important to never let the problems of aging (poor coordination, hearing, eyesight, and failing memory (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10522950, http://newoldage.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/14/guns-in-frail-hands/ ) disturb this myth.  Granny will instantly awaken, instantly find and remember how to use her weapon, and repel those damned ninjas.  She'll never go crazy and fire at that black mailman, kill herself in a fit of depression (https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/news/story/282/handguns-in-home-boost-suicide-risk-among-elderly.aspx), or accidentally shoot herself or someone else (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/28/elderly-woman-shot-dead-at-essex-care-homehttp://www.yourhoustonnews.com/courier/news/man-accidentally-shoots-himself-at-flemings-steakhouse-in-the-woodlands/article_7d3dc187-2cd1-5ec5-bf57-e6d2d9f6f7ec.html).

All people give up a certain amount of liberty to live in a society.  I'd really hope that you look after your grandmother better, so that she doesn't feel the need to arm herself against anyone under the age of 80.

Yes, we give up a certain amount of liberty to live in society, I suppose you and I just have different cutoffs for where that is.  Would you be up for mandatory body cameras on everyone?  That would surely save more lives than restricting guns. 

Unfortunately for grandma I can't watch her 24/7.  She certainly shouldn't use a gun if she's not capable, the same way she shouldn't drive a car.  If she IS capable, then I think she should be allowed to defend herself effectively.

See, you talk about how important it is for Grandma to be capable of using a gun to possess one . . . while ignoring the fact (brought up in the articles I linked) that there's little that will prevent Grandma from owning a gun either way.  As a matter of fact, when Obama tried to add the list of social security recipients declared mentally incompetent to the people who would be denied a gun during background checks, there was some pretty tremendous backlash and outrage http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/20/obama-looks-to-ban-social-security-recipients-from-owning-guns.html.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3352
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1075 on: May 02, 2016, 08:27:11 AM »
No modern military can stand against a couple guys with guns and cowboy hats!

Our military seemed to have a pretty damn hard time in the Middle East against some dudes with AK-47s.  Yeah we won, but it sure wasn't easy.  You would think with a world class army we could've just mowed them over in a few weeks.  Instead we spent multiple years and billions of dollars on the war.

I'm sorry to ruffle your cowboy hat, but those 'dudes with AK-47s' really aren't comparable.  They regularly use explosives, fully automatic weapons, RPGs, artillery, tanks, and armored vehicles (http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/17/insight-into-how-insurgents-fought-in-iraq/?_r=0).  Otherwise they wouldn't be much of a threat.  Much of their weaponry was taken from Saddam's stockpiles around the country, some of it is surplus Russian stuff.  An awful lot of the stuff was stolen from the supplies that the US brought in while inflicting your devastating war of freedom.

So they didn't need the guns?  I guess they probably didn't use them then right?

No, absolutely they used and needed guns.  But if guns were the only weapons used they wouldn't be any real threat at all.


Quote
Yes, I'm aware of the fears of the existential threat of ninja assassin communist Hitler taking over the US.  But it's a ridiculous concern.  How many first world countries have been invaded since WWII again?  What country are you expecting to invade the US, and why do you think that when the guys you pay to deal with that (the US military) fail, a few hand guns and rifles are going to help?

70 years since an army attacked us and you're satisfied it's going to last forever (despite us fighting people all over the world since then).  70 years, really?  Does your strategy only apply to the US?  Should people in other countries keep guns until they've been invasion free for 70 years?

I'm not expecting anyone to do it, because we've got an army we pay a ton for, and a few million citizens with firearms.  Then again I don't think anyone was expecting Japan to bomb one of our military bases in the 40's.  I don't expect anyone to break into my house at night, but I still lock my door.

I'm responding specifically to the point that was brought up - the importance of keeping an armed populace in the US to repel enemy invaders.  Which is silly.

The last time a foreign army attacked the US to invade, it was before the American civil war.  I suspect that the Brits have given up on their colony at this point, so you're probably safe from them.  You can't really count Japan bombing Pearl Harbour in this conversation . . . Having a well armed population does nothing at all to protect against bombing runs.




Quote
I'm also aware of the mythic gun totin' senior concept.  These people have no chance without the loving embrace of cold steel against the many thieves and robbers clawing at their doorways and windows every night.  It's important to never let the problems of aging (poor coordination, hearing, eyesight, and failing memory (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10522950, http://newoldage.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/14/guns-in-frail-hands/ ) disturb this myth.  Granny will instantly awaken, instantly find and remember how to use her weapon, and repel those damned ninjas.  She'll never go crazy and fire at that black mailman, kill herself in a fit of depression (https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/news/story/282/handguns-in-home-boost-suicide-risk-among-elderly.aspx), or accidentally shoot herself or someone else (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/28/elderly-woman-shot-dead-at-essex-care-homehttp://www.yourhoustonnews.com/courier/news/man-accidentally-shoots-himself-at-flemings-steakhouse-in-the-woodlands/article_7d3dc187-2cd1-5ec5-bf57-e6d2d9f6f7ec.html).

All people give up a certain amount of liberty to live in a society.  I'd really hope that you look after your grandmother better, so that she doesn't feel the need to arm herself against anyone under the age of 80.

Yes, we give up a certain amount of liberty to live in society, I suppose you and I just have different cutoffs for where that is.  Would you be up for mandatory body cameras on everyone?  That would surely save more lives than restricting guns. 

Unfortunately for grandma I can't watch her 24/7.  She certainly shouldn't use a gun if she's not capable, the same way she shouldn't drive a car.  If she IS capable, then I think she should be allowed to defend herself effectively.

See, you talk about how important it is for Grandma to be capable of using a gun to possess one . . . while ignoring the fact (brought up in the articles I linked) that there's little that will prevent Grandma from owning a gun either way.  As a matter of fact, when Obama tried to add the list of social security recipients declared mentally incompetent to the people who would be denied a gun during background checks, there was some pretty tremendous backlash and outrage http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/20/obama-looks-to-ban-social-security-recipients-from-owning-guns.html.

There's little to prevent Grandma from owning a gun in Canada, either. Are you speaking in generalities now, or are you exclusively criticizing the United States?

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1076 on: May 02, 2016, 09:19:48 AM »
Generally, I'm criticizing the argument that weapons are a great boon for seniors.  Specifically I'm criticizing the opposition to an attempt to keep mentally ill seniors from owning a weapon in the US.

To own a firearm in Canada you need to pass a test to get a license.  The license is valid for five years, at which point you're retested.  If you let your license lapse you can't buy a gun or ammunition.  If police discover that you have an illegal firearm they will confiscate it and charge you.  It's a bit of a different scenario than the one existing south of the border.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3352
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1077 on: May 02, 2016, 09:47:19 AM »
Generally, I'm criticizing the argument that weapons are a great boon for seniors.  Specifically I'm criticizing the opposition to an attempt to keep mentally ill seniors from owning a weapon in the US.

To own a firearm in Canada you need to pass a test to get a license.  The license is valid for five years, at which point you're retested.  If you let your license lapse you can't buy a gun or ammunition.  If police discover that you have an illegal firearm they will confiscate it and charge you.  It's a bit of a different scenario than the one existing south of the border.

I'm pretty sure there have been exactly zero instances of that argument presented in this thread.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1078 on: May 02, 2016, 10:38:35 AM »
Not all seniors are mentally ill.

In the US, if a person has been adjudicated to be mentally deficient, they are prohibited from buying a firearms.

This is reasonable. To deny someone a firearm, there needs to be due process.

It is NOT reasonable to deny someone a firearm because they are old and hence we think they might be senile.

It is NOT reasonable to deny someone a firearm because they have sought treatment for a mental illness.

Firearms ownership is a right. It is the default. We need to have a good reason to deny someone this right. Convicted of a violent crime? Denied. Seem to be a bad person or generally a jerk? Not denied. Been involuntarily committed by a court for a mental illness? Denied. Veteran seeking treatment for PTSD? Not denied.

Failing to obtain a license is not grounds for denying the exercise of a fundamental right. Requiring one is unconstitutional in the US, and wrong generally.

Some states in the US do not require a license to carry a concealed firearm. We call it "Constitutional Carry" and it is the right way to do it. We expect to see more states legalize unlicensed "Constitutional" carry. States that fail to do this are in the wrong.


GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1079 on: May 02, 2016, 11:10:11 AM »
Not all seniors are mentally ill.

In the US, if a person has been adjudicated to be mentally deficient, they are prohibited from buying a firearms.

This is reasonable. To deny someone a firearm, there needs to be due process.

It is NOT reasonable to deny someone a firearm because they are old and hence we think they might be senile.

Nobody said all seniors are mentally ill, or senile.

What Obama was trying to enact would only prevent senior citizens who are not mentally fit to handle their own affairs from buying a gun.  Currently they can purchase one.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1080 on: May 02, 2016, 11:20:21 AM »
Not all seniors are mentally ill.

In the US, if a person has been adjudicated to be mentally deficient, they are prohibited from buying a firearms.

This is reasonable. To deny someone a firearm, there needs to be due process.

It is NOT reasonable to deny someone a firearm because they are old and hence we think they might be senile.

Nobody said all seniors are mentally ill, or senile.

What Obama was trying to enact would only prevent senior citizens who are not mentally fit to handle their own affairs from buying a gun.  Currently they can purchase one.

Is this a huge concern, generally?  We don't prohibit bilateral arm amputees from purchasing rifles either, even though they would not be able to use one effectively or safely either.  Not a great concern to the public health on a probability scale.

Though I agree, if you are deemed unable to manage your own affairs, you probably should not be granted a ccw.  Owning a firearm in your house? Not sure I'm so scared of grandpa who can't remember where he parked his car driving down to the gun store and filling out paperwork for a several-hundred dollar weapon...
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

dmc

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1081 on: May 02, 2016, 02:05:48 PM »
That settles it. I'm buying a AR-15.   What's should I look for?

First buy a stripped lower receiver locally. Don't pay more than $60. This part is legally the firearm so it will have to come from a dealer, with a background check and so on.

Then buy a parts kit and assemble it yourself. Palmetto State Armory is a good choice.

I would reccomend a kit that looks something like thus: 16 inch cold hammer forced barrel, flat top receiver, with magpul furniture. A kit like this will run you about $500.

Then get a fold away rear sight and fold away front sight. Magpul is another good inexpensive brand for these but there are others. Then go to Primary Arms and buy one of their inexpensive red dot sights and co- witness it with the folding sights.

For about $800 you have a fully kitted AR 15 that is better and cheaper than buying one off the shelf.
No no no - you need the pink "Hello Kitty" one because pink equals not dangerous so OK ;)!

Well I'll be the outlier here and say that for a home protection firearm (as per the OP question) a pump action short barrel shotgun is a much better choice than any rifle. I personally like ones with pistol grips but not sure they are legal everywhere.

I picked up the Smith and Wesson M&P sport 2.  It was cheap enough, I can always upgrade later if I find I like the AR platform.  I like shooting the pistols, I should probably pick up some additional 15 round mags before they get scarce or expensive for the pistols.  I need to pick up some extra mags for the AR also.

Cyaphas

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 500
  • Age: 34
  • Location: DFW, TX
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1082 on: May 02, 2016, 10:55:49 PM »

I'm betting that in the unlikely event she was assaulted by a group of men in flyover country, any of those bible and gun owing conservative hicks would have put a
That must be why there's no sex crime at all in the southern states.  Guns, conservatism, and the bible protect people really really well.


Sometimes I wish you weren't such a bipolar troll.
“For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”
-Nelson Mandela

“Gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, barter is the money of peasants – but debt is the money of slaves.”
-Norm Franz

spartana

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3599
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1083 on: May 02, 2016, 11:39:42 PM »
Not all seniors are mentally ill.

In the US, if a person has been adjudicated to be mentally deficient, they are prohibited from buying a firearms.

This is reasonable. To deny someone a firearm, there needs to be due process.

It is NOT reasonable to deny someone a firearm because they are old and hence we think they might be senile.

Nobody said all seniors are mentally ill, or senile.

What Obama was trying to enact would only prevent senior citizens who are not mentally fit to handle their own affairs from buying a gun.  Currently they can purchase one.

Is this a huge concern, generally?  We don't prohibit bilateral arm amputees from purchasing rifles either, even though they would not be able to use one effectively or safely either.  Not a great concern to the public health on a probability scale.

Though I agree, if you are deemed unable to manage your own affairs, you probably should not be granted a ccw.  Owning a firearm in your house? Not sure I'm so scared of grandpa who can't remember where he parked his car driving down to the gun store and filling out paperwork for a several-hundred dollar weapon...
The problem most likely will be with senile seniors who already have guns and may have owned them a long time. Have to depend on family (if they have one) to remove any firearms from the home (like they'd remove the car keys) if the person suffered dementia.
Retired at 42 to play!

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1084 on: May 03, 2016, 04:32:41 AM »
Not all seniors are mentally ill.

In the US, if a person has been adjudicated to be mentally deficient, they are prohibited from buying a firearms.

This is reasonable. To deny someone a firearm, there needs to be due process.

It is NOT reasonable to deny someone a firearm because they are old and hence we think they might be senile.

Nobody said all seniors are mentally ill, or senile.

What Obama was trying to enact would only prevent senior citizens who are not mentally fit to handle their own affairs from buying a gun.  Currently they can purchase one.

Is this a huge concern, generally?  We don't prohibit bilateral arm amputees from purchasing rifles either, even though they would not be able to use one effectively or safely either.  Not a great concern to the public health on a probability scale.

Though I agree, if you are deemed unable to manage your own affairs, you probably should not be granted a ccw.  Owning a firearm in your house? Not sure I'm so scared of grandpa who can't remember where he parked his car driving down to the gun store and filling out paperwork for a several-hundred dollar weapon...
The problem most likely will be with senile seniors who already have guns and may have owned them a long time. Have to depend on family (if they have one) to remove any firearms from the home (like they'd remove the car keys) if the person suffered dementia.

That's a quitter's attitude! Wouldn't it be better, and we'd all be safer, if we made laws that forced people to do that?

But seriously, an accident under those circumstances would be tragic. For reals though, I don't know if the risk of such an incident could be legislated away...
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1085 on: May 03, 2016, 06:19:07 AM »
Not all seniors are mentally ill.

In the US, if a person has been adjudicated to be mentally deficient, they are prohibited from buying a firearms.

This is reasonable. To deny someone a firearm, there needs to be due process.

It is NOT reasonable to deny someone a firearm because they are old and hence we think they might be senile.

Nobody said all seniors are mentally ill, or senile.

What Obama was trying to enact would only prevent senior citizens who are not mentally fit to handle their own affairs from buying a gun.  Currently they can purchase one.

Is this a huge concern, generally?  We don't prohibit bilateral arm amputees from purchasing rifles either, even though they would not be able to use one effectively or safely either.  Not a great concern to the public health on a probability scale.

Though I agree, if you are deemed unable to manage your own affairs, you probably should not be granted a ccw.  Owning a firearm in your house? Not sure I'm so scared of grandpa who can't remember where he parked his car driving down to the gun store and filling out paperwork for a several-hundred dollar weapon...
The problem most likely will be with senile seniors who already have guns and may have owned them a long time. Have to depend on family (if they have one) to remove any firearms from the home (like they'd remove the car keys) if the person suffered dementia.

That's a quitter's attitude! Wouldn't it be better, and we'd all be safer, if we made laws that forced people to do that?

But seriously, an accident under those circumstances would be tragic. For reals though, I don't know if the risk of such an incident could be legislated away...

This is an area where requiring a license to own a firearm that gets renewed every few years with a competency test, and keeping a list of what firearms are owned by what license holder makes an awful lot of sense.  Then if the license expires, or if the person can't pass the test, the weapons can be confiscated or legally transferred to someone who has a valid firearms license.

My grandmother has dementia and has slowly declined over the past fifteen years.  The disease does weird stuff to the way that people behave.  At one point early on, before we really knew what was happening she decided out of the blue that my mother (who was regularly visiting every other day to do grandma's laundry and help around the house) was stealing her clothing.  Grandma attacked my mom with a broom when she came in the house, and we needed two people to physically restrain her.  I'm really glad that she didn't have a gun.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1086 on: May 03, 2016, 06:40:19 AM »
I guess you've failed to convince me that the benefits of this system outweighs the costs. Outside of hypotheticals and the occasional annecdotes, there are so few instances where this law would be enforced that I can't see it being worth the effort. The families that care enough to remove firearms from granny gun-toter are going to do it. Those that don't, aren't, no matter if there is a law that says they can. It wouldn't be any different under the law, except in the incredibly rare case where well-meaning family members attempt to remove weapons from individuals who aren't competent enough to own them, but are competent enough to use a lawyer to stop them.

If your driver's ID or vehicle insurance lapses, no one comes and confiscates your car. You're still allowed to own it, even though you may back it through your garage door or take out your mailbox. You're just not allowed to drive it on the streets. Pretty much the same as the current CCW laws; they (almost?) all lapse every few years, and must be reapplied for.  Grandpa's rusty hunting rifle stuffed in the back of the closet is hardly a danger to anyone, and making a law that says you could take it from him (when you already can) doesn't make anyone safer.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3352
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1087 on: May 03, 2016, 08:15:10 AM »
I guess you've failed to convince me that the benefits of this system outweighs the costs. Outside of hypotheticals and the occasional annecdotes, there are so few instances where this law would be enforced that I can't see it being worth the effort. The families that care enough to remove firearms from granny gun-toter are going to do it. Those that don't, aren't, no matter if there is a law that says they can. It wouldn't be any different under the law, except in the incredibly rare case where well-meaning family members attempt to remove weapons from individuals who aren't competent enough to own them, but are competent enough to use a lawyer to stop them.

If your driver's ID or vehicle insurance lapses, no one comes and confiscates your car. You're still allowed to own it, even though you may back it through your garage door or take out your mailbox. You're just not allowed to drive it on the streets. Pretty much the same as the current CCW laws; they (almost?) all lapse every few years, and must be reapplied for.  Grandpa's rusty hunting rifle stuffed in the back of the closet is hardly a danger to anyone, and making a law that says you could take it from him (when you already can) doesn't make anyone safer.

I really don't believe that the primary focus here is on saving lives. If that were the case, time would be spent focusing on other incidents that are far more common than grandpa going senile and shooting someone (like the 88,000 annual alcohol-related deaths, or the 5,500+ pool deaths, etc). It's easy to legislate away things that are of no use to you personally.

spartana

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3599
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1088 on: May 03, 2016, 08:21:25 AM »
Not all seniors are mentally ill.

In the US, if a person has been adjudicated to be mentally deficient, they are prohibited from buying a firearms.

This is reasonable. To deny someone a firearm, there needs to be due process.

It is NOT reasonable to deny someone a firearm because they are old and hence we think they might be senile.

Nobody said all seniors are mentally ill, or senile.

What Obama was trying to enact would only prevent senior citizens who are not mentally fit to handle their own affairs from buying a gun.  Currently they can purchase one.

Is this a huge concern, generally?  We don't prohibit bilateral arm amputees from purchasing rifles either, even though they would not be able to use one effectively or safely either.  Not a great concern to the public health on a probability scale.

Though I agree, if you are deemed unable to manage your own affairs, you probably should not be granted a ccw.  Owning a firearm in your house? Not sure I'm so scared of grandpa who can't remember where he parked his car driving down to the gun store and filling out paperwork for a several-hundred dollar weapon...
The problem most likely will be with senile seniors who already have guns and may have owned them a long time. Have to depend on family (if they have one) to remove any firearms from the home (like they'd remove the car keys) if the person suffered dementia.

That's a quitter's attitude! Wouldn't it be better, and we'd all be safer, if we made laws that forced people to do that?

But seriously, an accident under those circumstances would be tragic. For reals though, I don't know if the risk of such an incident could be legislated away...

This is an area where requiring a license to own a firearm that gets renewed every few years with a competency test, and keeping a list of what firearms are owned by what license holder makes an awful lot of sense.  Then if the license expires, or if the person can't pass the test, the weapons can be confiscated or legally transferred to someone who has a valid firearms license.

My grandmother has dementia and has slowly declined over the past fifteen years.  The disease does weird stuff to the way that people behave.  At one point early on, before we really knew what was happening she decided out of the blue that my mother (who was regularly visiting every other day to do grandma's laundry and help around the house) was stealing her clothing.  Grandma attacked my mom with a broom when she came in the house, and we needed two people to physically restrain her.  I'm really glad that she didn't have a gun.
But but but... How will we be able to keep the young un's off our damn lawn ;-).

 Seriously though some states (like Cali where I live and that have stricter gun laws) have been talking about requiring registered gun owners to qualify when they get older (Cali does that for drivers licenses once age 70). People with ccws already have to do that every few years  in most counties, with some exceptions, and here they are the only people legally allowed to carry a loaded firearm outside the home. But IMO I don't think requiring an age based requalifying will make a difference and the image of jack booted communist ninja assassin Hitler SS gun removal teams breaking down grannies door and confiscating her guns  wouldn't go over too well for most Americans. I think most would prefer to left family deal with taking them away when the time comes.
Retired at 42 to play!

Miss Piggy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 719
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1089 on: May 03, 2016, 09:36:26 AM »
Admittedly, I have not read this entire thread. (And at this point, with this many replies, who has time?) But regardless of which side of the firearms fence someone is on in the U.S., it seems to me that we're so far down the "right to bear arms" path that even if the laws did change, how in the world would they (they being  the powers that be) collect all of the firearms that are currently owned? I mean, it seems like an insurmountable task. And even if successful for the majority, we'd still be left with the bad guys owning the guns. I just don't know if there's any turning back the clock at this point.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1090 on: May 03, 2016, 02:21:05 PM »
Admittedly, I have not read this entire thread. (And at this point, with this many replies, who has time?) But regardless of which side of the firearms fence someone is on in the U.S., it seems to me that we're so far down the "right to bear arms" path that even if the laws did change, how in the world would they (they being  the powers that be) collect all of the firearms that are currently owned? I mean, it seems like an insurmountable task. And even if successful for the majority, we'd still be left with the bad guys owning the guns. I just don't know if there's any turning back the clock at this point.

An excellent point Miss Piggy, that has been pointed out a few times. The issue now would be, since we can't 'poof the mean guns' away, how else could we go about addressing the problem?

Current suggestions in the thread run:

Agreed points:  Standardized safety training for CCW holders.
Safety Training for children in school to expose them to the dangers of firearms and how to react around them.
Reforms to the background check system to include better mental health screening.

Compromiseable, but debated points: Gun registries.
Remove current bans on automatic weapons and magazine sizes - if one can pass a proper background check, why restrict these?

Non Starters: Guns for everyone.
Banning/outlawing all firearms.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

jamesvt

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1091 on: May 03, 2016, 02:23:45 PM »

This is an area where requiring a license to own a firearm that gets renewed every few years with a competency test, and keeping a list of what firearms are owned by what license holder makes an awful lot of sense.  Then if the license expires, or if the person can't pass the test, the weapons can be confiscated or legally transferred to someone who has a valid firearms license.

My grandmother has dementia and has slowly declined over the past fifteen years.  The disease does weird stuff to the way that people behave.  At one point early on, before we really knew what was happening she decided out of the blue that my mother (who was regularly visiting every other day to do grandma's laundry and help around the house) was stealing her clothing.  Grandma attacked my mom with a broom when she came in the house, and we needed two people to physically restrain her.  I'm really glad that she didn't have a gun.
How do you account for the 300 million guns currently owned? Most people will not register them. Hundreds of thousands of NY and CT residents became felons overnight rather than register their "assault rifles".  Many American rather die than have their firearms confiscated.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4105
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1092 on: May 03, 2016, 02:40:35 PM »
Admittedly, I have not read this entire thread. (And at this point, with this many replies, who has time?) But regardless of which side of the firearms fence someone is on in the U.S., it seems to me that we're so far down the "right to bear arms" path that even if the laws did change, how in the world would they (they being  the powers that be) collect all of the firearms that are currently owned? I mean, it seems like an insurmountable task. And even if successful for the majority, we'd still be left with the bad guys owning the guns. I just don't know if there's any turning back the clock at this point.

An excellent point Miss Piggy, that has been pointed out a few times. The issue now would be, since we can't 'poof the mean guns' away, how else could we go about addressing the problem?

Current suggestions in the thread run:

Agreed points:  Standardized safety training for CCW holders.
Safety Training for children in school to expose them to the dangers of firearms and how to react around them.
Reforms to the background check system to include better mental health screening.

Compromiseable, but debated points: Gun registries.
Remove current bans on automatic weapons and magazine sizes - if one can pass a proper background check, why restrict these?

Non Starters: Guns for everyone.
Banning/outlawing all firearms.
No, actually this was something that many people opposed.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3352
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1093 on: May 03, 2016, 02:41:22 PM »
Admittedly, I have not read this entire thread. (And at this point, with this many replies, who has time?) But regardless of which side of the firearms fence someone is on in the U.S., it seems to me that we're so far down the "right to bear arms" path that even if the laws did change, how in the world would they (they being  the powers that be) collect all of the firearms that are currently owned? I mean, it seems like an insurmountable task. And even if successful for the majority, we'd still be left with the bad guys owning the guns. I just don't know if there's any turning back the clock at this point.

An excellent point Miss Piggy, that has been pointed out a few times. The issue now would be, since we can't 'poof the mean guns' away, how else could we go about addressing the problem?

Current suggestions in the thread run:

Agreed points:  Standardized safety training for CCW holders.
Safety Training for children in school to expose them to the dangers of firearms and how to react around them.
Reforms to the background check system to include better mental health screening.

Compromiseable, but debated points: Gun registries.
Remove current bans on automatic weapons and magazine sizes - if one can pass a proper background check, why restrict these?

Non Starters: Guns for everyone.
Banning/outlawing all firearms.
No, actually this was something that many people opposed.

If I recall correctly, that was opposed by the pro-gun-control posters.  I could be mistaken.

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1379
  • Location: Denver
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1094 on: May 03, 2016, 03:14:03 PM »
I really don't believe that the primary focus here is on saving lives. If that were the case, time would be spent focusing on other incidents that are far more common than grandpa going senile and shooting someone (like the 88,000 annual alcohol-related deaths, or the 5,500+ pool deaths, etc). It's easy to legislate away things that are of no use to you personally.

We do spend a lot of time on alcohol related deaths though? There's all sorts of government "don't drink and drive" campaigns plus all the private ones and colleges try to educate students on not leaving friends passed out.

I don't really get the pool comparison. I'm not very upset about people drowning in pools because, as sad as is it, it's their own fault. The person owning/using the object is the one who pays the price. I don't think very many pool owners/users are using them to purposefully kill others.
Refinanced $35,000 Parent PLUS loan with Earnest | 7.65% to 4.65%. | $200 bonus: http://goo.gl/dCbBZy

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3352
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1095 on: May 03, 2016, 03:16:45 PM »
I really don't believe that the primary focus here is on saving lives. If that were the case, time would be spent focusing on other incidents that are far more common than grandpa going senile and shooting someone (like the 88,000 annual alcohol-related deaths, or the 5,500+ pool deaths, etc). It's easy to legislate away things that are of no use to you personally.

We do spend a lot of time on alcohol related deaths though? There's all sorts of government "don't drink and drive" campaigns plus all the private ones and colleges try to educate students on not leaving friends passed out.

I don't really get the pool comparison. I'm not very upset about people drowning in pools because, as sad as is it, it's their own fault. The person owning/using the object is the one who pays the price. I don't think very many pool owners/users are using them to purposefully kill others.

A substantial portion of the arguments presented in this thread were regarding requiring training to prevent accidental injury/death.  If someone accidentally shoots self/family how is that any different than their child falling into the pool when nobody's looking?

Miss Piggy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 719
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1096 on: May 03, 2016, 03:38:11 PM »
Admittedly, I have not read this entire thread. (And at this point, with this many replies, who has time?) But regardless of which side of the firearms fence someone is on in the U.S., it seems to me that we're so far down the "right to bear arms" path that even if the laws did change, how in the world would they (they being  the powers that be) collect all of the firearms that are currently owned? I mean, it seems like an insurmountable task. And even if successful for the majority, we'd still be left with the bad guys owning the guns. I just don't know if there's any turning back the clock at this point.

An excellent point Miss Piggy, that has been pointed out a few times. The issue now would be, since we can't 'poof the mean guns' away, how else could we go about addressing the problem?

Current suggestions in the thread run:

Agreed points:  Standardized safety training for CCW holders.
Safety Training for children in school to expose them to the dangers of firearms and how to react around them.
Reforms to the background check system to include better mental health screening.

Compromiseable, but debated points: Gun registries.
Remove current bans on automatic weapons and magazine sizes - if one can pass a proper background check, why restrict these?

Non Starters: Guns for everyone.
Banning/outlawing all firearms.

Thanks for the summary. :)

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1097 on: May 04, 2016, 07:17:42 PM »
I really don't believe that the primary focus here is on saving lives. If that were the case, time would be spent focusing on other incidents that are far more common than grandpa going senile and shooting someone (like the 88,000 annual alcohol-related deaths, or the 5,500+ pool deaths, etc). It's easy to legislate away things that are of no use to you personally.

We do spend a lot of time on alcohol related deaths though? There's all sorts of government "don't drink and drive" campaigns plus all the private ones and colleges try to educate students on not leaving friends passed out.

I don't really get the pool comparison. I'm not very upset about people drowning in pools because, as sad as is it, it's their own fault. The person owning/using the object is the one who pays the price. I don't think very many pool owners/users are using them to purposefully kill others.

A substantial portion of the arguments presented in this thread were regarding requiring training to prevent accidental injury/death.  If someone accidentally shoots self/family how is that any different than their child falling into the pool when nobody's looking?

Well said. The vast majority of gun deaths are inflicted upon oneself. Less than 1/3 of yearly gun deaths are purposeful killings of another person.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

BlueHouse

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2118
  • Location: WDC
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1098 on: June 03, 2016, 02:20:23 PM »
BlueHouse, do you keep a loaded pistol under your pillow?

Sorry, Scottish. I purposely didn't come back to this thread until I registered my gun.  The answer is, yes, on occasion, but very infrequently now because I live in a safe house with an alarm system.  And the floors don't creak.  It is a double-action revolver.  There is no way to accidentally pull the trigger (you have to squeeze quite hard for both actions).

I have to say, this is really impressive.   Pretty much every gun owner in this thread (not sure about blue house who just made one short post) is a fervent believer in firearms safety and takes all reasonable precautions with their weapons.
I didn't read the whole post about what constitutes safety, but I don't let kids in the house unless it's in the safe. 
Sometimes nothing can be a real cool hand

tyort1

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 952
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1099 on: June 06, 2016, 11:53:46 AM »

Unfortunately for grandma I can't watch her 24/7.  She certainly shouldn't use a gun if she's not capable, the same way she shouldn't drive a car.  If she IS capable, then I think she should be allowed to defend herself effectively.

I truly hope you're right and no private citizens ever need to be armed again for the rest of time.  History tells us that's probably not going to happen, but then again who knows.  Personally I think giving some power to the people rather than the government will help keep the government in its place.

Maybe grandma should just move to a safer place.  Like, out of the south.  I get why southern people are paranoid, its a shitty place to live.  Instead of a buying her a gun, buy her luggage:



Frugalite in training.