Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 456296 times)

deadlymonkey

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 400
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1300 on: June 16, 2016, 09:33:16 AM »
Can home-owners insurance companies ask if you have a gun in the house?  I don't know if is legal to ask or if the increase in risk is significant enough to warrant rate adjustments.

Homeowners insurance companies insure against theft of the guns in my house...so, yeah?

does the presence of guns, which I assume you told the insurance company, affect your rates.  Just curiosity because I never considered it before.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3988
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1301 on: June 16, 2016, 09:35:51 AM »
Can home-owners insurance companies ask if you have a gun in the house?  I don't know if is legal to ask or if the increase in risk is significant enough to warrant rate adjustments.

Homeowners insurance companies insure against theft of the guns in my house...so, yeah?

does the presence of guns, which I assume you told the insurance company, affect your rates.  Just curiosity because I never considered it before.
.

I have no idea. By default, my policy includes coverage for several thousand dollars in the 'firearms' category.

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1302 on: June 16, 2016, 09:57:12 AM »
We have a problem with radical Islam.  Europeans are scared to come here?  What about the Paris shootings?  Brussels?  Yesterday there was a terror attack with a knife in France that killed a police officer and his partner.  Shit happens.  You cannot stop someone hell bent on causing terror.

The loser in FL is nothing more than an ISIL groupie.  At the last minute he claims ISIL inspired.  He was known to frequent the club -- likely a latent gay person who couldn't resolve his conflicts.  The vast majority of gun violence in the US has nothing to do with religion - just someone gets pissed, goes and buys a gun as a penis compensator, and has at it.

It's insane that we are the only country in the world where anyone can go into a shop and buy a semi-automatic killing machine with a super large magazine easier than it is to get a hair-dressers license.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2016, 10:05:34 AM by Northwestie »

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Age: 35
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1303 on: June 16, 2016, 11:12:16 AM »
The loser in FL is nothing more than an ISIL groupie.  At the last minute he claims ISIL inspired.  He was known to frequent the club -- likely a latent gay person who couldn't resolve his conflicts.  The vast majority of gun violence in the US has nothing to do with religion - just someone gets pissed, goes and buys a gun as a penis compensator, and has at it.

It's insane that we are the only country in the world where anyone can go into a shop and buy a semi-automatic killing machine with a super large magazine easier than it is to get a hair-dressers license.

I think that just speaks to the ridiculous requirements imposed on the people to get a hair-dressers licence, not the ease of obtaining a lawful firearm. The vast majority of gun violence in the US isn't done with rifles, even AR-15s, and homicide rates are still declining year after year even with this easy access to firearms.

I also think it shows that people are so pro-gun control when none of the proposed solutions could have stopped this shooter.

Curbside Prophet

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 182
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1304 on: June 16, 2016, 02:47:29 PM »
It's insane that we are the only country in the world where anyone can go into a shop and buy a semi-automatic killing machine with a super large magazine easier than it is to get a hair-dressers license.

That easy huh?  Do me a favor, try it in California and let me know how it works out.  After you fail, reconcile that with how San Bernadino happened.

Cyaphas

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 500
  • Age: 35
  • Location: DFW, TX
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1305 on: June 16, 2016, 03:07:07 PM »
It's insane that we are the only country in the world where anyone can go into a shop and buy a semi-automatic killing machine with a super large magazine easier than it is to get a hair-dressers license.

That easy huh?  Do me a favor, try it in California and let me know how it works out.  After you fail, reconcile that with how San Bernadino happened.

I think it's more insane how acceptable it is in the rest of the world for people to tell other people how they can live. It's disturbing how the political parties have become what one side is going to force the otherside to do.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2016, 03:31:12 PM by Cyaphas »
“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

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1306 on: June 16, 2016, 04:20:04 PM »
We have a problem with radical Islam.  Europeans are scared to come here?  What about the Paris shootings?  Brussels?  Yesterday there was a terror attack with a knife in France that killed a police officer and his partner.  Shit happens.  You cannot stop someone hell bent on causing terror.

The loser in FL is nothing more than an ISIL groupie.  At the last minute he claims ISIL inspired.  He was known to frequent the club -- likely a latent gay person who couldn't resolve his conflicts.  The vast majority of gun violence in the US has nothing to do with religion - just someone gets pissed, goes and buys a gun as a penis compensator, and has at it.

It's insane that we are the only country in the world where anyone can go into a shop and buy a semi-automatic killing machine with a super large magazine easier than it is to get a hair-dressers license.

And yet gun deaths are down year over year for over two decades. And semi-automatic killing machines kill fewer people than pools or bicycles....
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1379
  • Location: Denver
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1307 on: June 16, 2016, 04:20:43 PM »
It's insane that we are the only country in the world where anyone can go into a shop and buy a semi-automatic killing machine with a super large magazine easier than it is to get a hair-dressers license.

That easy huh?  Do me a favor, try it in California and let me know how it works out.  After you fail, reconcile that with how San Bernadino happened.

What are you trying to say? The shooters, and a family member, bought the guns legally in CA and then modified it to use larger magazines that are illegal in CA. But they could have just went to Arizona or Nevada and not needed to modify anything.
Refinanced $35,000 Parent PLUS loan with Earnest | 7.65% to 4.65%. | $200 bonus: http://goo.gl/dCbBZy

dycker1978

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 718
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1308 on: June 16, 2016, 04:29:14 PM »
We have a problem with radical Islam.  Europeans are scared to come here?  What about the Paris shootings?  Brussels?  Yesterday there was a terror attack with a knife in France that killed a police officer and his partner.  Shit happens.  You cannot stop someone hell bent on causing terror.

The loser in FL is nothing more than an ISIL groupie.  At the last minute he claims ISIL inspired.  He was known to frequent the club -- likely a latent gay person who couldn't resolve his conflicts.  The vast majority of gun violence in the US has nothing to do with religion - just someone gets pissed, goes and buys a gun as a penis compensator, and has at it.

It's insane that we are the only country in the world where anyone can go into a shop and buy a semi-automatic killing machine with a super large magazine easier than it is to get a hair-dressers license.

ISIL took credit, but this was a hate crime.  It was hate against LGBT people in a gay bar, full of Latinos during pride month.

If this was truly a ISIL terrorist  attack, I would think that Disney would have been the target not a gay bar. 

Lets not make this political.  it was a hat grime against LGBT people.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3988
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1309 on: June 16, 2016, 05:26:11 PM »
It's insane that we are the only country in the world where anyone can go into a shop and buy a semi-automatic killing machine with a super large magazine easier than it is to get a hair-dressers license.

That easy huh?  Do me a favor, try it in California and let me know how it works out.  After you fail, reconcile that with how San Bernadino happened.

What are you trying to say? The shooters, and a family member, bought the guns legally in CA and then modified it to use larger magazines that are illegal in CA. But they could have just went to Arizona or Nevada and not needed to modify anything.

Not legally. Do you know how firearms purchases work between states?

http://www.gunlaw.com/gun-law-articles/7-californians-and-out-of-state-gun-shows.html
« Last Edit: June 16, 2016, 05:30:47 PM by JLee »

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1310 on: June 16, 2016, 06:49:29 PM »
Ban the sale of assault weapons -- problem solved

Cyaphas

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 500
  • Age: 35
  • Location: DFW, TX
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1311 on: June 16, 2016, 06:52:01 PM »

Calif has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country (I'm a gun owner there) and has pretty much every restriction Northwestie has asked for and more - 10 day waiting periods, background checks, safety training required, magazines limited at 10 rounds, must purchase thru a FFL dealer, cannot open carry, cannot conceal carry with out a CCW which are hard to get, can not transport loaded, etc... Yet the San Bernardino shooters easily circumvented all that simply by having someone buy guns for them - which yes, is also illegal in Calif.


I believe Northwestie is an incremental kind of guy. He's openly stated he wants all guns banned. Maybe he knows, like most legislators with that as a goal know, they'll make some laws that create a target rich environment, someone will ignore the laws and shoot the law abiding targets in the target rich environment, they'll ask for more laws that create a more target rich environment... repeat until guns are banned.
“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

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1312 on: June 16, 2016, 06:56:54 PM »

Calif has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country (I'm a gun owner there) and has pretty much every restriction Northwestie has asked for and more - 10 day waiting periods, background checks, safety training required, magazines limited at 10 rounds, must purchase thru a FFL dealer, cannot open carry, cannot conceal carry with out a CCW which are hard to get, can not transport loaded, etc... Yet the San Bernardino shooters easily circumvented all that simply by having someone buy guns for them - which yes, is also illegal in Calif.


I believe Northwestie is an incremental kind of guy. He's openly stated he wants all guns banned. Maybe he knows, like most legislators with that as a goal know, they'll make some laws that create a target rich environment, someone will ignore the laws and shoot the law abiding targets in the target rich environment, they'll ask for more laws that create a more target rich environment... repeat until guns are banned.

Yawn.  Another lie.  Please show where I stated that "all guns" should be banned.  Please stick to SOME facts at least.

Cyaphas

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 500
  • Age: 35
  • Location: DFW, TX
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1313 on: June 16, 2016, 07:02:12 PM »

Calif has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country (I'm a gun owner there) and has pretty much every restriction Northwestie has asked for and more - 10 day waiting periods, background checks, safety training required, magazines limited at 10 rounds, must purchase thru a FFL dealer, cannot open carry, cannot conceal carry with out a CCW which are hard to get, can not transport loaded, etc... Yet the San Bernardino shooters easily circumvented all that simply by having someone buy guns for them - which yes, is also illegal in Calif.


I believe Northwestie is an incremental kind of guy. He's openly stated he wants all guns banned. Maybe he knows, like most legislators with that as a goal know, they'll make some laws that create a target rich environment, someone will ignore the laws and shoot the law abiding targets in the target rich environment, they'll ask for more laws that create a more target rich environment... repeat until guns are banned.

Yawn.  Another lie.  Please show where I stated that "all guns" should be banned.  Please stick to SOME facts at least.

I can't remember where it was, this thread or the Orlando thread, you came right out and said "Ban all guns now." Atleast, that's how I remember it. I'm not going to go hunting for your crazy quote when I already have this gem:

Ban the sale of assault weapons -- problem solved

Assault Weapons are already banned from sale to anyone without a Class 3 Federal Weapons License. But, as you've proven time and time again, facts aren't really the basis of your argument.
“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

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1208
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1314 on: June 16, 2016, 08:40:14 PM »
It's insane that we are the only country in the world where anyone can go into a shop and buy a semi-automatic killing machine with a super large magazine easier than it is to get a hair-dressers license.

That easy huh?  Do me a favor, try it in California and let me know how it works out.  After you fail, reconcile that with how San Bernadino happened.
This^. Calif has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country (I'm a gun owner there) and has pretty much every restriction Northwestie has asked for and more - 10 day waiting periods, background checks, safety training required, magazines limited at 10 rounds, must purchase thru a FFL dealer, cannot open carry, cannot conceal carry with out a CCW which are hard to get, can not transport loaded, etc... Yet the San Bernardino shooters easily circumvented all that simply by having someone buy guns for them - which yes, is also illegal in Calif.  I personally support Calif gun regulations for most things with a few exceptions such as limiting magazine capacity or banning certain types of firearms.

Spartana - You might reconsider your conceal carry stance.  CCW holders are among the safest gun owners.  I lived in a state during college that had it and it wasn't nearly the issue I though it woudl be (it was a non issue).  Our state allowed it within the last 10 years and it's had very few negatives.  Allowing law enforcement officials to pick and choose who gets a CCW (as in California) is a recipe for corruption.  I don't agree with many of California's gun laws, but the magazine issues, gun bans and the CCW stance are the most offensive. 

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1379
  • Location: Denver
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1315 on: June 16, 2016, 08:55:49 PM »
It's insane that we are the only country in the world where anyone can go into a shop and buy a semi-automatic killing machine with a super large magazine easier than it is to get a hair-dressers license.

That easy huh?  Do me a favor, try it in California and let me know how it works out.  After you fail, reconcile that with how San Bernadino happened.

What are you trying to say? The shooters, and a family member, bought the guns legally in CA and then modified it to use larger magazines that are illegal in CA. But they could have just went to Arizona or Nevada and not needed to modify anything.

Not legally. Do you know how firearms purchases work between states?

http://www.gunlaw.com/gun-law-articles/7-californians-and-out-of-state-gun-shows.html

Noted. But the shooters already used 1 straw buyer. I'm sure they could have found one in a AZ or NV. Anyway, Curbside seemed to be saying that California's law are restrictive and it didn't stop them. But it seems naive to pretend CA exists in a vacuum; 47 other states easily accessible. The largest point seemed to be about the US vs. basically everywhere else. CA's laws are only considered restrictive in the US.
Refinanced $35,000 Parent PLUS loan with Earnest | 7.65% to 4.65%. | $200 bonus: http://goo.gl/dCbBZy

Curbside Prophet

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 182
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1316 on: June 16, 2016, 09:17:06 PM »
It's insane that we are the only country in the world where anyone can go into a shop and buy a semi-automatic killing machine with a super large magazine easier than it is to get a hair-dressers license.

That easy huh?  Do me a favor, try it in California and let me know how it works out.  After you fail, reconcile that with how San Bernadino happened.

What are you trying to say? The shooters, and a family member, bought the guns legally in CA and then modified it to use larger magazines that are illegal in CA. But they could have just went to Arizona or Nevada and not needed to modify anything.

I'm saying that statement is bullshit.  Want to know what I did to get my AR-15?  I'll tell you:

1. Apply for permit, fill out multiple paperwork including medical doctors to contact for history, background check, fingerprinting.
2. Wait 15 DAYS for permit issue
3. Go to police station to pick up permit 15 days later
4. Purchase AR-15
5. Go BACK to police station to have it physically inspected and registered

Yeah real easy buddy.  That's a full background check, 3 trips to the police station, and a 15-day waiting period. 

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Age: 35
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1317 on: June 17, 2016, 01:34:39 AM »
It's insane that we are the only country in the world where anyone can go into a shop and buy a semi-automatic killing machine with a super large magazine easier than it is to get a hair-dressers license.

That easy huh?  Do me a favor, try it in California and let me know how it works out.  After you fail, reconcile that with how San Bernadino happened.

What are you trying to say? The shooters, and a family member, bought the guns legally in CA and then modified it to use larger magazines that are illegal in CA. But they could have just went to Arizona or Nevada and not needed to modify anything.

I'm saying that statement is bullshit.  Want to know what I did to get my AR-15?  I'll tell you:

1. Apply for permit, fill out multiple paperwork including medical doctors to contact for history, background check, fingerprinting.
2. Wait 15 DAYS for permit issue
3. Go to police station to pick up permit 15 days later
4. Purchase AR-15
5. Go BACK to police station to have it physically inspected and registered

Yeah real easy buddy.  That's a full background check, 3 trips to the police station, and a 15-day waiting period.

Did the government reimburse you for all the time you wasted complying with their ridiculous laws? I think that should be required in the next ridiculous CA gun control law they pass.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1318 on: June 17, 2016, 05:47:50 AM »
It's insane that we are the only country in the world where anyone can go into a shop and buy a semi-automatic killing machine with a super large magazine easier than it is to get a hair-dressers license.

That easy huh?  Do me a favor, try it in California and let me know how it works out.  After you fail, reconcile that with how San Bernadino happened.

I think it's more insane how acceptable it is in the rest of the world for people to tell other people how they can live. It's disturbing how the political parties have become what one side is going to force the otherside to do.

This, this, a thousand times this!

It makes me sick. Seriously, a shooting occurs on Florida. Days later, liberals are wondering what laws they can pass to force (tens of?) thousands of businesses and tens of millions of people to behave the way they want, because of their feelings.

Never taking a moment to stop and consider that they don't have the right to force others how to behave. Disgusting and sad.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9343
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1319 on: June 17, 2016, 05:49:53 AM »
And yet gun deaths are down year over year for over two decades. And semi-automatic killing machines kill fewer people than pools or bicycles....

Can you give stats for the number of people killed by bicycles?  My understanding is that it's pretty low . . . usually cars and trucks end up killing cyclists.  Cyclists kill very few people.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2016, 06:29:40 AM by GuitarStv »

mak1277

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 571
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1320 on: June 17, 2016, 06:29:02 AM »
We have a problem with radical Islam.  Europeans are scared to come here?  What about the Paris shootings?  Brussels?  Yesterday there was a terror attack with a knife in France that killed a police officer and his partner.  Shit happens.  You cannot stop someone hell bent on causing terror.

The loser in FL is nothing more than an ISIL groupie.  At the last minute he claims ISIL inspired.  He was known to frequent the club -- likely a latent gay person who couldn't resolve his conflicts.  The vast majority of gun violence in the US has nothing to do with religion - just someone gets pissed, goes and buys a gun as a penis compensator, and has at it.

It's insane that we are the only country in the world where anyone can go into a shop and buy a semi-automatic killing machine with a super large magazine easier than it is to get a hair-dressers license.

ISIL took credit, but this was a hate crime.  It was hate against LGBT people in a gay bar, full of Latinos during pride month.

If this was truly a ISIL terrorist  attack, I would think that Disney would have been the target not a gay bar. 

Lets not make this political.  it was a hat grime against LGBT people.

Why can't it be ISIL *and* a hate crime?  It's pretty clear that Islamic fundamentalists have a grim view of homosexuality, so I don't think it's a stretch to think it could be both.

Curbside Prophet

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 182
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1321 on: June 17, 2016, 12:25:08 PM »
It's insane that we are the only country in the world where anyone can go into a shop and buy a semi-automatic killing machine with a super large magazine easier than it is to get a hair-dressers license.

That easy huh?  Do me a favor, try it in California and let me know how it works out.  After you fail, reconcile that with how San Bernadino happened.

What are you trying to say? The shooters, and a family member, bought the guns legally in CA and then modified it to use larger magazines that are illegal in CA. But they could have just went to Arizona or Nevada and not needed to modify anything.

I'm saying that statement is bullshit.  Want to know what I did to get my AR-15?  I'll tell you:

1. Apply for permit, fill out multiple paperwork including medical doctors to contact for history, background check, fingerprinting.
2. Wait 15 DAYS for permit issue
3. Go to police station to pick up permit 15 days later
4. Purchase AR-15
5. Go BACK to police station to have it physically inspected and registered

Yeah real easy buddy.  That's a full background check, 3 trips to the police station, and a 15-day waiting period.

Did the government reimburse you for all the time you wasted complying with their ridiculous laws? I think that should be required in the next ridiculous CA gun control law they pass.

Nope.  And this isn't CA.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1322 on: June 21, 2016, 08:00:07 PM »
And yet gun deaths are down year over year for over two decades. And semi-automatic killing machines kill fewer people than pools or bicycles....

Can you give stats for the number of people killed by bicycles?  My understanding is that it's pretty low . . . usually cars and trucks end up killing cyclists.  Cyclists kill very few people.

I didn't mean to state that bicycles are intentionally murdering U.S. citizens. I'm sorry if I was confusing. I meant that there are more deaths each year from using bicycles than there are deaths from using rifles in the U.S.   Last stat I saw was 900 (bicycle deaths).  This site http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/factsheet_crash.cfm claims 726 bicycle related deaths, roughly twice as many as were killed with rifles that year, a number of which 'assault' rifles is a small subset.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9343
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1323 on: June 22, 2016, 06:09:55 AM »
And yet gun deaths are down year over year for over two decades. And semi-automatic killing machines kill fewer people than pools or bicycles....

Can you give stats for the number of people killed by bicycles?  My understanding is that it's pretty low . . . usually cars and trucks end up killing cyclists.  Cyclists kill very few people.

I didn't mean to state that bicycles are intentionally murdering U.S. citizens. I'm sorry if I was confusing. I meant that there are more deaths each year from using bicycles than there are deaths from using rifles in the U.S.   Last stat I saw was 900 (bicycle deaths).  This site http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/factsheet_crash.cfm claims 726 bicycle related deaths, roughly twice as many as were killed with rifles that year, a number of which 'assault' rifles is a small subset.

What you said doesn't actually apply to those numbers though.  Those deaths were all caused by the use of motor vehicles, not the use of bicycles . . . the people who died just happened to be on bicycles when they were killed by drivers.

Banning bicycles wouldn't make any sense in response to those deaths.  Applying new laws or regulations to make driving a car less dangerous to everyone else probably would though.

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6893
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1324 on: June 22, 2016, 06:53:33 AM »
What you said doesn't actually apply to those numbers though.  Those deaths were all caused by the use of motor vehicles, not the use of bicycles . . . the people who died just happened to be on bicycles when they were killed by drivers.
Banning bicycles wouldn't make any sense in response to those deaths.  Applying new laws or regulations to make driving a car less dangerous to everyone else probably would though.
Heading happily OT here - Ontario has a new law that cars have to be a meter or more away from a bicycle when the car passes.  Of course this means the cyclist also has to be obeying traffic laws.  Part of safer driving legislation passed in January. Right now Ottawa police are giving warning tickets downtown to help increase awareness.  On some streets this is going to be tricky, since the 1 M distance may put a car over the solid line for oncoming traffic.  http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/1000-tickets-for-distracted-driving-500-for-biking-without-a-light-and-other-laws-to-hit-ontario-streets
The measure of civilization is how people treat one another.

http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/meetups-and-social-events/ontario's-own-camp-mustache-2017/ - MEET US THERE!

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9343
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1325 on: June 22, 2016, 07:19:52 AM »
What you said doesn't actually apply to those numbers though.  Those deaths were all caused by the use of motor vehicles, not the use of bicycles . . . the people who died just happened to be on bicycles when they were killed by drivers.
Banning bicycles wouldn't make any sense in response to those deaths.  Applying new laws or regulations to make driving a car less dangerous to everyone else probably would though.
Heading happily OT here - Ontario has a new law that cars have to be a meter or more away from a bicycle when the car passes.  Of course this means the cyclist also has to be obeying traffic laws.  Part of safer driving legislation passed in January. Right now Ottawa police are giving warning tickets downtown to help increase awareness.  On some streets this is going to be tricky, since the 1 M distance may put a car over the solid line for oncoming traffic.  http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/1000-tickets-for-distracted-driving-500-for-biking-without-a-light-and-other-laws-to-hit-ontario-streets

Generally I really like the new laws.  Bikes out when it's dark/rainy without lights/reflectors get fined more heavily, cars that door bikes get a stiffer fine, and the one meter (three feet) passing room is supposed to be law.  It shouldn't be tricky to enforce one meter passing at all.  If there isn't room to safely pass a bike, don't pass the bike.  I haven't seen any difference in how cars pass me though, so I'm guessing that there's very little enforcement going on in Toronto so far . . . but I can hope.


If we can just get rid of the silly requirement that all bicycles in Ontario have to have 25 x 2 cm red reflective tape strips on the rear fork and 25 x 2 cm white reflective tape strips on the front fork, and the fine for not having a bell on your bike (it's less safe to move your hands off the brakes and try to use a bell than it is to yell, AND it's not as loud) we would have pretty decent cycling laws.

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6893
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1326 on: June 22, 2016, 10:45:17 AM »
Generally I really like the new laws.  Bikes out when it's dark/rainy without lights/reflectors get fined more heavily, cars that door bikes get a stiffer fine, and the one meter (three feet) passing room is supposed to be law.  It shouldn't be tricky to enforce one meter passing at all.  If there isn't room to safely pass a bike, don't pass the bike.  I haven't seen any difference in how cars pass me though, so I'm guessing that there's very little enforcement going on in Toronto so far . . . but I can hope.


If we can just get rid of the silly requirement that all bicycles in Ontario have to have 25 x 2 cm red reflective tape strips on the rear fork and 25 x 2 cm white reflective tape strips on the front fork, and the fine for not having a bell on your bike (it's less safe to move your hands off the brakes and try to use a bell than it is to yell, AND it's not as loud) we would have pretty decent cycling laws.

Oh the reflective tape - so useless unless the car's headlights are perfectly positioned to reflect back to the driver.  I'm not a fan of strobe-type lights either, as a driver I have more trouble judging distance and speed with them than a regular light.  But so often in Ottawa I see cyclists in dark clothes with no lights.  Of course pedestrians in dark clothes, especially on a dark rainy night, are equally hard to see.  But if a cyclist can put on a helmet, why not a light-weight safety vest with reflective strips?  In addition to lights, of course.
Re the passing, there are streets where a car could never pass a cyclist, between the parked cars and the oncoming lane there just is not room.  If the cyclist were part of the traffic flow this would not be an issue, but we know how they are pushed to the edge of the street.  And of course there are lots of cars going way too fast on city streets, so a cyclist obeying the speed limit would still be going "too slow" for traffic.

Bells - can't they be positioned to be easy to use?
The measure of civilization is how people treat one another.

http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/meetups-and-social-events/ontario's-own-camp-mustache-2017/ - MEET US THERE!

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1327 on: June 22, 2016, 10:50:05 AM »
What you said doesn't actually apply to those numbers though.  Those deaths were all caused by the use of motor vehicles, not the use of bicycles . . . the people who died just happened to be on bicycles when they were killed by drivers.
Banning bicycles wouldn't make any sense in response to those deaths.  Applying new laws or regulations to make driving a car less dangerous to everyone else probably would though.
Heading happily OT here - Ontario has a new law that cars have to be a meter or more away from a bicycle when the car passes.  Of course this means the cyclist also has to be obeying traffic laws.  Part of safer driving legislation passed in January. Right now Ottawa police are giving warning tickets downtown to help increase awareness.  On some streets this is going to be tricky, since the 1 M distance may put a car over the solid line for oncoming traffic.  http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/1000-tickets-for-distracted-driving-500-for-biking-without-a-light-and-other-laws-to-hit-ontario-streets

Generally I really like the new laws.  Bikes out when it's dark/rainy without lights/reflectors get fined more heavily, cars that door bikes get a stiffer fine, and the one meter (three feet) passing room is supposed to be law.  It shouldn't be tricky to enforce one meter passing at all.  If there isn't room to safely pass a bike, don't pass the bike.  I haven't seen any difference in how cars pass me though, so I'm guessing that there's very little enforcement going on in Toronto so far . . . but I can hope.


If we can just get rid of the silly requirement that all bicycles in Ontario have to have 25 x 2 cm red reflective tape strips on the rear fork and 25 x 2 cm white reflective tape strips on the front fork, and the fine for not having a bell on your bike (it's less safe to move your hands off the brakes and try to use a bell than it is to yell, AND it's not as loud) we would have pretty decent cycling laws.

It's amazing how such silly laws for bicycles and firearms get passed...
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6893
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1328 on: June 22, 2016, 11:01:02 AM »
It's amazing how such silly laws for bicycles and firearms get passed...
Well with the bicycle reflective tape it is probably a holdover from earlier laws when reflective tape was the high-tech solution.  I remember my first bike light - it ran off a little generator powered by the wheel turning, and when I stopped it died. At least reflective tape always works.  There are lots of laws that don't make sense any more.  http://people.howstuffworks.com/20-silly-and-unusual-us-laws.htm

To get back on topic - hmm, maybe the present US militia constitutional amendment laws should only apply to firearms that were current at the time of the amendment.  More modern arms could need more modern legislation.  Just like legislation has adjusted to changes from horse-drawn vehicles to trains, cars, bicycles, motorbikes, and now e-bikes. 

The measure of civilization is how people treat one another.

http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/meetups-and-social-events/ontario's-own-camp-mustache-2017/ - MEET US THERE!

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9343
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1329 on: June 22, 2016, 11:08:29 AM »
Bells - can't they be positioned to be easy to use?

Not really on a road bike . . . the bell has to go near the stem.  Your brake/shift levers are where your hands should be most of the time, so you're either on the hoods or in the drops.  To activate the bell you need to remove a hand from the bar, which is a bad idea if you're anticipating the need to stop or swerve (which is likely if you're using the bell at all).  If you were to put the bell on the wrapped part of the bar to be closer to your hands it would interfere with your other hand positions.

I still contend that a bell is a useless device on the road.  They're probably very handy on bike paths where you have joggers and dog walkers to contend with.  On a busy city street, your little *ding ding* bell is not loud enough for a car to hear.  You can yell much louder, and there's no confusion what your yelling means.  You can yell while keeping both hands firmly over your brakes.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3988
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1330 on: June 22, 2016, 12:03:50 PM »
It's amazing how such silly laws for bicycles and firearms get passed...
Well with the bicycle reflective tape it is probably a holdover from earlier laws when reflective tape was the high-tech solution.  I remember my first bike light - it ran off a little generator powered by the wheel turning, and when I stopped it died. At least reflective tape always works.  There are lots of laws that don't make sense any more.  http://people.howstuffworks.com/20-silly-and-unusual-us-laws.htm

To get back on topic - hmm, maybe the present US militia constitutional amendment laws should only apply to firearms that were current at the time of the amendment.  More modern arms could need more modern legislation.  Just like legislation has adjusted to changes from horse-drawn vehicles to trains, cars, bicycles, motorbikes, and now e-bikes.
And freedom of speech should only apply to quill pens and paper?

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1331 on: June 22, 2016, 12:07:53 PM »
Generally I really like the new laws.  Bikes out when it's dark/rainy without lights/reflectors get fined more heavily, cars that door bikes get a stiffer fine, and the one meter (three feet) passing room is supposed to be law.  It shouldn't be tricky to enforce one meter passing at all.  If there isn't room to safely pass a bike, don't pass the bike.  I haven't seen any difference in how cars pass me though, so I'm guessing that there's very little enforcement going on in Toronto so far . . . but I can hope.


If we can just get rid of the silly requirement that all bicycles in Ontario have to have 25 x 2 cm red reflective tape strips on the rear fork and 25 x 2 cm white reflective tape strips on the front fork, and the fine for not having a bell on your bike (it's less safe to move your hands off the brakes and try to use a bell than it is to yell, AND it's not as loud) we would have pretty decent cycling laws.

Oh the reflective tape - so useless unless the car's headlights are perfectly positioned to reflect back to the driver.

I have a set of glowing strips that highlight the shape of my bike from from the side, it's ran by a 9 volt battery.  Glows green along it's entire length.  I also have a superflash rear strobe & a decent headlamp.

Curbside Prophet

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 182
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1332 on: June 22, 2016, 02:55:17 PM »
Always thought these were cool and a smart invention.




RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6893
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1333 on: June 22, 2016, 03:52:20 PM »
Moonshadow, Curbside Prophet - love those!

JLee - point was we have updated laws for other things as technology changed circumstances - plus a bit tongue in cheek.  We Canadians are known for our dry understated sense of humour, dont'cha know?  Somewhere between British and American (Man about the House was sooo much better than Three's Company, what can I say?  And Corner Gas, only in Canada).

General comment (yes I know I am coming from the Canadian viewpoint, which is understandable since I am Canadian) - despite all the rhetoric about long guns, I think the big difference between overall American and Canadian gun mortality rates is the presence/absence (well rarity of legal) of handguns.  Sure long guns are more useful if you are about to commit a massacre (or want to shoot someone from a distance) - but the total mortality difference is most likely due to handguns.  And although I can see a military use for handguns, it is minor - are they truly covered by the amendment?
The measure of civilization is how people treat one another.

http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/meetups-and-social-events/ontario's-own-camp-mustache-2017/ - MEET US THERE!

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1334 on: June 22, 2016, 04:41:07 PM »
Always thought these were cool and a smart invention.



Yeah, I had a set of persistence of vision led lights as well.  They were cool, but they'd eat through those lithium watch batteries in a hurry.  The strips I was talking about were not led's, but some kind of electro-lumenesint plastic.  The entire length of it glowed green, and a 9 volt battery lasted me about 3 weeks of nightly commuting.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1335 on: June 22, 2016, 06:05:15 PM »
General comment (yes I know I am coming from the Canadian viewpoint, which is understandable since I am Canadian) - despite all the rhetoric about long guns, I think the big difference between overall American and Canadian gun mortality rates is the presence/absence (well rarity of legal) of handguns.  Sure long guns are more useful if you are about to commit a massacre (or want to shoot someone from a distance) - but the total mortality difference is most likely due to handguns. 

You are completely, absolutely, correct. Rifles accounted for 400-ish murders according the FBI. That leaves over 12,000 murders committed by other weapons, handguns being far and away the majority.


And although I can see a military use for handguns, it is minor - are they truly covered by the amendment?

According to the Supreme Court of the United States, firearms are a 'right' of the individual, for the purpose of self-defense, if a person so chooses. Handguns are a premier form of self defense firearm, so it would seem they are covered.


Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

deadlymonkey

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 400
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1336 on: June 23, 2016, 08:00:42 AM »
General comment (yes I know I am coming from the Canadian viewpoint, which is understandable since I am Canadian) - despite all the rhetoric about long guns, I think the big difference between overall American and Canadian gun mortality rates is the presence/absence (well rarity of legal) of handguns.  Sure long guns are more useful if you are about to commit a massacre (or want to shoot someone from a distance) - but the total mortality difference is most likely due to handguns. 

You are completely, absolutely, correct. Rifles accounted for 400-ish murders according the FBI. That leaves over 12,000 murders committed by other weapons, handguns being far and away the majority.


And although I can see a military use for handguns, it is minor - are they truly covered by the amendment?

According to the Supreme Court of the United States, firearms are a 'right' of the individual, for the purpose of self-defense, if a person so chooses. Handguns are a premier form of self defense firearm, so it would seem they are covered.


A slight adjustment to that ruling.  SCOTUS ruled that a state can regulate or ban a firearm if it does not serve a use in a "militia".  That is why sawed off shotguns tend to be banned or severely restricted.  They serve not useful purpose in combat.

Drifterrider

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1122
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1337 on: June 23, 2016, 08:23:53 AM »
Ban the sale of assault weapons -- problem solved

Kindly define "assault weapon".

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1338 on: June 23, 2016, 08:50:20 AM »
General comment (yes I know I am coming from the Canadian viewpoint, which is understandable since I am Canadian) - despite all the rhetoric about long guns, I think the big difference between overall American and Canadian gun mortality rates is the presence/absence (well rarity of legal) of handguns.  Sure long guns are more useful if you are about to commit a massacre (or want to shoot someone from a distance) - but the total mortality difference is most likely due to handguns. 

You are completely, absolutely, correct. Rifles accounted for 400-ish murders according the FBI. That leaves over 12,000 murders committed by other weapons, handguns being far and away the majority.


And although I can see a military use for handguns, it is minor - are they truly covered by the amendment?

According to the Supreme Court of the United States, firearms are a 'right' of the individual, for the purpose of self-defense, if a person so chooses. Handguns are a premier form of self defense firearm, so it would seem they are covered.


A slight adjustment to that ruling.  SCOTUS ruled that a state can regulate or ban a firearm if it does not serve a use in a "militia".  That is why sawed off shotguns tend to be banned or severely restricted.  They serve not useful purpose in combat.

This.  Handguns are still carried by officers & NCO's in non-combat roles, which is why they are protected by the 2nd.  The part about their usefulness in a military context is the determining factor for protection from state level restrictions.  However, the ban on short barreled shotguns & rifles could now be challenged.  First off, it is widely recognized that the SCOTUS ruling that upheld the National Firearms Act limitations on short barreled shotguns was poorly argued, and likely would have gone the other way otherwise.  Also, these days both these types of firearms do have a military purpose.  The short barreled rifle is widely used today, because of bull-pup designs that allow the bullet to reach effective velocities in a shorter overall weapon, while proving more practical in close order combat situations, such as "house to house", allowing the user to swing the business end around faster as they turn a corner or enter a room.  The short barreled shotgun has use as a "breaching weapon", basically a special shotgun shell is used to blow the lock off of a door suddenly just before soldiers storm the building.  Swat teams use this on a regular basis for "no knock" raids domestically as well.  However, a "pen gun" has no military use that I know of, and those are restricted at the state level in almost every state, I believe.  Also, a weapon that is often called a "bang stick" (not the slang term for a long gun), it's a pole with a plunger trigger on the other end from the handle.  It is used by divers to defend themselves from large, dangerous creatures, such as sharks.  They are not restricted in coastal states, because of their obvious usefulness, but they still require a class 2 tax stamp.  They can still kill up close, obviously, so they might be banned in places such as NYC, I'm not sure.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3988
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1339 on: June 23, 2016, 09:00:03 AM »
General comment (yes I know I am coming from the Canadian viewpoint, which is understandable since I am Canadian) - despite all the rhetoric about long guns, I think the big difference between overall American and Canadian gun mortality rates is the presence/absence (well rarity of legal) of handguns.  Sure long guns are more useful if you are about to commit a massacre (or want to shoot someone from a distance) - but the total mortality difference is most likely due to handguns. 

You are completely, absolutely, correct. Rifles accounted for 400-ish murders according the FBI. That leaves over 12,000 murders committed by other weapons, handguns being far and away the majority.


And although I can see a military use for handguns, it is minor - are they truly covered by the amendment?

According to the Supreme Court of the United States, firearms are a 'right' of the individual, for the purpose of self-defense, if a person so chooses. Handguns are a premier form of self defense firearm, so it would seem they are covered.


A slight adjustment to that ruling.  SCOTUS ruled that a state can regulate or ban a firearm if it does not serve a use in a "militia".  That is why sawed off shotguns tend to be banned or severely restricted.  They serve not useful purpose in combat.

This.  Handguns are still carried by officers & NCO's in non-combat roles, which is why they are protected by the 2nd.  The part about their usefulness in a military context is the determining factor for protection from state level restrictions.  However, the ban on short barreled shotguns & rifles could now be challenged.  First off, it is widely recognized that the SCOTUS ruling that upheld the National Firearms Act limitations on short barreled shotguns was poorly argued, and likely would have gone the other way otherwise.  Also, these days both these types of firearms do have a military purpose.  The short barreled rifle is widely used today, because of bull-pup designs that allow the bullet to reach effective velocities in a shorter overall weapon, while proving more practical in close order combat situations, such as "house to house", allowing the user to swing the business end around faster as they turn a corner or enter a room.  The short barreled shotgun has use as a "breaching weapon", basically a special shotgun shell is used to blow the lock off of a door suddenly just before soldiers storm the building.  Swat teams use this on a regular basis for "no knock" raids domestically as well.  However, a "pen gun" has no military use that I know of, and those are restricted at the state level in almost every state, I believe.  Also, a weapon that is often called a "bang stick" (not the slang term for a long gun), it's a pole with a plunger trigger on the other end from the handle.  It is used by divers to defend themselves from large, dangerous creatures, such as sharks.  They are not restricted in coastal states, because of their obvious usefulness, but they still require a class 2 tax stamp.  They can still kill up close, obviously, so they might be banned in places such as NYC, I'm not sure.

It amuses me to no end that they're so restricted in the US but legal in Canada.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1340 on: June 23, 2016, 09:10:22 AM »
General comment (yes I know I am coming from the Canadian viewpoint, which is understandable since I am Canadian) - despite all the rhetoric about long guns, I think the big difference between overall American and Canadian gun mortality rates is the presence/absence (well rarity of legal) of handguns.  Sure long guns are more useful if you are about to commit a massacre (or want to shoot someone from a distance) - but the total mortality difference is most likely due to handguns. 

You are completely, absolutely, correct. Rifles accounted for 400-ish murders according the FBI. That leaves over 12,000 murders committed by other weapons, handguns being far and away the majority.


And although I can see a military use for handguns, it is minor - are they truly covered by the amendment?

According to the Supreme Court of the United States, firearms are a 'right' of the individual, for the purpose of self-defense, if a person so chooses. Handguns are a premier form of self defense firearm, so it would seem they are covered.


A slight adjustment to that ruling.  SCOTUS ruled that a state can regulate or ban a firearm if it does not serve a use in a "militia".  That is why sawed off shotguns tend to be banned or severely restricted.  They serve not useful purpose in combat.

This.  Handguns are still carried by officers & NCO's in non-combat roles, which is why they are protected by the 2nd.  The part about their usefulness in a military context is the determining factor for protection from state level restrictions.  However, the ban on short barreled shotguns & rifles could now be challenged.  First off, it is widely recognized that the SCOTUS ruling that upheld the National Firearms Act limitations on short barreled shotguns was poorly argued, and likely would have gone the other way otherwise.  Also, these days both these types of firearms do have a military purpose.  The short barreled rifle is widely used today, because of bull-pup designs that allow the bullet to reach effective velocities in a shorter overall weapon, while proving more practical in close order combat situations, such as "house to house", allowing the user to swing the business end around faster as they turn a corner or enter a room.  The short barreled shotgun has use as a "breaching weapon", basically a special shotgun shell is used to blow the lock off of a door suddenly just before soldiers storm the building.  Swat teams use this on a regular basis for "no knock" raids domestically as well.  However, a "pen gun" has no military use that I know of, and those are restricted at the state level in almost every state, I believe.  Also, a weapon that is often called a "bang stick" (not the slang term for a long gun), it's a pole with a plunger trigger on the other end from the handle.  It is used by divers to defend themselves from large, dangerous creatures, such as sharks.  They are not restricted in coastal states, because of their obvious usefulness, but they still require a class 2 tax stamp.  They can still kill up close, obviously, so they might be banned in places such as NYC, I'm not sure.

It amuses me to no end that they're so restricted in the US but legal in Canada.

Which ones?

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3988
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1341 on: June 23, 2016, 09:47:10 AM »
General comment (yes I know I am coming from the Canadian viewpoint, which is understandable since I am Canadian) - despite all the rhetoric about long guns, I think the big difference between overall American and Canadian gun mortality rates is the presence/absence (well rarity of legal) of handguns.  Sure long guns are more useful if you are about to commit a massacre (or want to shoot someone from a distance) - but the total mortality difference is most likely due to handguns. 

You are completely, absolutely, correct. Rifles accounted for 400-ish murders according the FBI. That leaves over 12,000 murders committed by other weapons, handguns being far and away the majority.


And although I can see a military use for handguns, it is minor - are they truly covered by the amendment?

According to the Supreme Court of the United States, firearms are a 'right' of the individual, for the purpose of self-defense, if a person so chooses. Handguns are a premier form of self defense firearm, so it would seem they are covered.


A slight adjustment to that ruling.  SCOTUS ruled that a state can regulate or ban a firearm if it does not serve a use in a "militia".  That is why sawed off shotguns tend to be banned or severely restricted.  They serve not useful purpose in combat.

This.  Handguns are still carried by officers & NCO's in non-combat roles, which is why they are protected by the 2nd.  The part about their usefulness in a military context is the determining factor for protection from state level restrictions.  However, the ban on short barreled shotguns & rifles could now be challenged.  First off, it is widely recognized that the SCOTUS ruling that upheld the National Firearms Act limitations on short barreled shotguns was poorly argued, and likely would have gone the other way otherwise.  Also, these days both these types of firearms do have a military purpose.  The short barreled rifle is widely used today, because of bull-pup designs that allow the bullet to reach effective velocities in a shorter overall weapon, while proving more practical in close order combat situations, such as "house to house", allowing the user to swing the business end around faster as they turn a corner or enter a room.  The short barreled shotgun has use as a "breaching weapon", basically a special shotgun shell is used to blow the lock off of a door suddenly just before soldiers storm the building.  Swat teams use this on a regular basis for "no knock" raids domestically as well.  However, a "pen gun" has no military use that I know of, and those are restricted at the state level in almost every state, I believe.  Also, a weapon that is often called a "bang stick" (not the slang term for a long gun), it's a pole with a plunger trigger on the other end from the handle.  It is used by divers to defend themselves from large, dangerous creatures, such as sharks.  They are not restricted in coastal states, because of their obvious usefulness, but they still require a class 2 tax stamp.  They can still kill up close, obviously, so they might be banned in places such as NYC, I'm not sure.

It amuses me to no end that they're so restricted in the US but legal in Canada.

Which ones?

Short barreled shotguns. I saw a whole bunch of them at the gun show in Calgary a few months back (along with "assault" rifles that are also illegal in the US, i.e. Tavor).

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9343
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1342 on: June 23, 2016, 10:04:42 AM »
General comment (yes I know I am coming from the Canadian viewpoint, which is understandable since I am Canadian) - despite all the rhetoric about long guns, I think the big difference between overall American and Canadian gun mortality rates is the presence/absence (well rarity of legal) of handguns.  Sure long guns are more useful if you are about to commit a massacre (or want to shoot someone from a distance) - but the total mortality difference is most likely due to handguns. 

You are completely, absolutely, correct. Rifles accounted for 400-ish murders according the FBI. That leaves over 12,000 murders committed by other weapons, handguns being far and away the majority.


And although I can see a military use for handguns, it is minor - are they truly covered by the amendment?

According to the Supreme Court of the United States, firearms are a 'right' of the individual, for the purpose of self-defense, if a person so chooses. Handguns are a premier form of self defense firearm, so it would seem they are covered.


A slight adjustment to that ruling.  SCOTUS ruled that a state can regulate or ban a firearm if it does not serve a use in a "militia".  That is why sawed off shotguns tend to be banned or severely restricted.  They serve not useful purpose in combat.

This.  Handguns are still carried by officers & NCO's in non-combat roles, which is why they are protected by the 2nd.  The part about their usefulness in a military context is the determining factor for protection from state level restrictions.  However, the ban on short barreled shotguns & rifles could now be challenged.  First off, it is widely recognized that the SCOTUS ruling that upheld the National Firearms Act limitations on short barreled shotguns was poorly argued, and likely would have gone the other way otherwise.  Also, these days both these types of firearms do have a military purpose.  The short barreled rifle is widely used today, because of bull-pup designs that allow the bullet to reach effective velocities in a shorter overall weapon, while proving more practical in close order combat situations, such as "house to house", allowing the user to swing the business end around faster as they turn a corner or enter a room.  The short barreled shotgun has use as a "breaching weapon", basically a special shotgun shell is used to blow the lock off of a door suddenly just before soldiers storm the building.  Swat teams use this on a regular basis for "no knock" raids domestically as well.  However, a "pen gun" has no military use that I know of, and those are restricted at the state level in almost every state, I believe.  Also, a weapon that is often called a "bang stick" (not the slang term for a long gun), it's a pole with a plunger trigger on the other end from the handle.  It is used by divers to defend themselves from large, dangerous creatures, such as sharks.  They are not restricted in coastal states, because of their obvious usefulness, but they still require a class 2 tax stamp.  They can still kill up close, obviously, so they might be banned in places such as NYC, I'm not sure.

It amuses me to no end that they're so restricted in the US but legal in Canada.

Which ones?

Short barreled shotguns. I saw a whole bunch of them at the gun show in Calgary a few months back (along with "assault" rifles that are also illegal in the US, i.e. Tavor).

We have funny shotgun rules.  You can go to jail for sawwing a shotgun barrel shorter . . . but can legally buy a shotgun that is manufactured with a really really really short barrel.  :P

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3988
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1343 on: June 23, 2016, 10:16:33 AM »
General comment (yes I know I am coming from the Canadian viewpoint, which is understandable since I am Canadian) - despite all the rhetoric about long guns, I think the big difference between overall American and Canadian gun mortality rates is the presence/absence (well rarity of legal) of handguns.  Sure long guns are more useful if you are about to commit a massacre (or want to shoot someone from a distance) - but the total mortality difference is most likely due to handguns. 

You are completely, absolutely, correct. Rifles accounted for 400-ish murders according the FBI. That leaves over 12,000 murders committed by other weapons, handguns being far and away the majority.


And although I can see a military use for handguns, it is minor - are they truly covered by the amendment?

According to the Supreme Court of the United States, firearms are a 'right' of the individual, for the purpose of self-defense, if a person so chooses. Handguns are a premier form of self defense firearm, so it would seem they are covered.


A slight adjustment to that ruling.  SCOTUS ruled that a state can regulate or ban a firearm if it does not serve a use in a "militia".  That is why sawed off shotguns tend to be banned or severely restricted.  They serve not useful purpose in combat.

This.  Handguns are still carried by officers & NCO's in non-combat roles, which is why they are protected by the 2nd.  The part about their usefulness in a military context is the determining factor for protection from state level restrictions.  However, the ban on short barreled shotguns & rifles could now be challenged.  First off, it is widely recognized that the SCOTUS ruling that upheld the National Firearms Act limitations on short barreled shotguns was poorly argued, and likely would have gone the other way otherwise.  Also, these days both these types of firearms do have a military purpose.  The short barreled rifle is widely used today, because of bull-pup designs that allow the bullet to reach effective velocities in a shorter overall weapon, while proving more practical in close order combat situations, such as "house to house", allowing the user to swing the business end around faster as they turn a corner or enter a room.  The short barreled shotgun has use as a "breaching weapon", basically a special shotgun shell is used to blow the lock off of a door suddenly just before soldiers storm the building.  Swat teams use this on a regular basis for "no knock" raids domestically as well.  However, a "pen gun" has no military use that I know of, and those are restricted at the state level in almost every state, I believe.  Also, a weapon that is often called a "bang stick" (not the slang term for a long gun), it's a pole with a plunger trigger on the other end from the handle.  It is used by divers to defend themselves from large, dangerous creatures, such as sharks.  They are not restricted in coastal states, because of their obvious usefulness, but they still require a class 2 tax stamp.  They can still kill up close, obviously, so they might be banned in places such as NYC, I'm not sure.

It amuses me to no end that they're so restricted in the US but legal in Canada.

Which ones?

Short barreled shotguns. I saw a whole bunch of them at the gun show in Calgary a few months back (along with "assault" rifles that are also illegal in the US, i.e. Tavor).

We have funny shotgun rules.  You can go to jail for sawwing a shotgun barrel shorter . . . but can legally buy a shotgun that is manufactured with a really really really short barrel.  :P

The US has some weird rules too.  An AR-15 pistol is completely legal, but if you put a stock on it you have just manufactured a short-barreled rifle, which is very, very illegal without federal approval, paperwork, registration, and a $200 tax stamp.

Drifterrider

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1122
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1344 on: June 23, 2016, 10:24:06 AM »

Short barreled shotguns. I saw a whole bunch of them at the gun show in Calgary a few months back (along with "assault" rifles that are also illegal in the US, i.e. Tavor).

The Tavor isn't illegal in the US.  It is even legal in Maryland if you have an "extension" welded on (the barrel is just short of the require length).  I fired one.  I didn't like it as much as my AR.  Plus at $1,800 I'm not having one any time in the foreseeable future.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3988
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1345 on: June 23, 2016, 10:28:26 AM »

Short barreled shotguns. I saw a whole bunch of them at the gun show in Calgary a few months back (along with "assault" rifles that are also illegal in the US, i.e. Tavor).

The Tavor isn't illegal in the US.  It is even legal in Maryland if you have an "extension" welded on (the barrel is just short of the require length).  I fired one.  I didn't like it as much as my AR.  Plus at $1,800 I'm not having one any time in the foreseeable future.

Ahh, it looks like it's been available since 2013 through a US subsidiary.

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6893
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1346 on: June 23, 2016, 10:33:41 AM »
Re funny shotgun laws - I think (not sure) that most of our long gun laws are aimed at hunting more than target practice - aren't shotguns used for birds?  I know lead pellet is banned around wetlands because of lead toxicity in birds picking up pellets from the bottom of marshes.   Most people I know with long guns are either hunters or farmers or both.  I don't think I know anyone who does target practice, except a few I have met at SCA demos who do longbow at targets.

Many of my students were hunters, and involved in DU, and there are lots of farmers around here who have long guns for coyote control.  You know my lack of expertise when I say the only time I went hunting was in 1966 with a .22 for prairie dogs in a cow pasture in Alberta. My Dad spent summers on a farm in Alberta, and I grew up hearing stories of too many horses and cows breaking their legs in prairie dog holes, so I understood why were doing it.  Of course now as a biologist I want there to be some prairie dogs, for bio-diversity and to keep black-footed ferrets fed.  But I am not anti-hunting.
The measure of civilization is how people treat one another.

http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/meetups-and-social-events/ontario's-own-camp-mustache-2017/ - MEET US THERE!

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1347 on: June 23, 2016, 01:40:55 PM »
We used shorter barrelled .12 ga riot shotguns (as well as pistols and M16s and larger firearms) when I was in the USCG as part of our everyday armament. Just about the most useful and practical firearm we had for most situations in smaller confined spaces. They are also the most damage-inflicting lethal thing out there IMHO.


I can see how a short barreled shotgun would be ideal on a ship or boat.  Long distance shots are extremely unlikely on the same ship, and accurate shooting from one ship to another is next to impossible (unless you are Annie Oakley).  And the short nature of the weapon would allow  better manuvoring in tight spaces, such as are found on a typical yacht.

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6893
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1348 on: June 23, 2016, 02:45:38 PM »
Or giant cargo ships with all those holds and containers! We had .50 cal machine guns for ship to ship stuff. Skipper: "Put one across the bow as a warning Spartana." Shots fired. Me: "ah crap". Boat sinks ;-).
Who needs icebergs when they have Spartana?  ;-)
The measure of civilization is how people treat one another.

http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/meetups-and-social-events/ontario's-own-camp-mustache-2017/ - MEET US THERE!

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1349 on: June 23, 2016, 08:42:56 PM »
I thought this new blog post today was really relevant to this thread, and since it's too difficult to quote portions, I will just leave this here....

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/146307088451/why-gun-control-cant-be-solved-in-the-usa