Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 345583 times)

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4751
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #150 on: March 02, 2016, 01:18:34 PM »
A nuke is banned, of course, but for a completely different reasons.

Is private ownership of nukes actually "banned," or is it merely a practical impossibility?

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5179
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #151 on: March 02, 2016, 01:20:39 PM »
The British gave you your country. We took ours from them by force.
That was aimed at Australia, but I suppose you would say the same thing about Canada. 

To shift viewpoint just a bit, most of the Commonwealth countries developed home rule gradually (with a bit of fuss here and there).  It wasn't "given" to us, we worked for it, but mostly peacefully.  Sort of like a child gradually growing up and becoming independent, but still on good terms with the parents.  We have nice family reunions too (Commonwealth meetings, Commonwealth games). Fortunately the British government had the example of what happens when you try to keep the apron strings too tight (i.e. the US), and cooperated. The US managed to have 1/3 of the population get its way - 1/3 didn't care, and 1/3 were loyal to Britain and ended up as political refugees - witness the United Empire Loyalists in Canada.  Speaking of heroes/icons, Laura Secord was born in the 13 colonies (New York).

A result of this is that (I speak for Canada here) we mostly tend to talk things over, sometimes ad nauseum, until we sort things out and reach some sort of accord that we may not all be thrilled with but can live with.  Please notice the "wishy-washy" language, we call it getting along.  Of course some groups are not happy with this (witness the FLQ) but mostly they are seen as aberrant, not heroes.  So we just don't have that built-in sense that we might need to over throw our government by force (i.e. US second amendment argument). It's OUR government, it took a lot of negotiation to get it, and it is there to serve us (peace, order, and good government is the founding principle for Confederation, for example).  So re a "right" to bear arms, it just isn't in our national psyche.  Part of our lives, yes, you can't be a frontier society at some point and not have guns as part of it.

On the defense part, if no-one has hand-guns then there is less need to have one's own guns to use in self-defense.  Yes, people own them illegally here, and there are extra penalties for using a gun in the commission of a crime, on top of the regular penalties.  The suggestions of a super strong flashlight and some sort of pepper spray (whatever is legal in that jurisdiction) seems like a lot more sensible precaution.  Not to mention having a phone in the bedroom with speed dial to 911.  Not a green laser please, they blind and would be dangerous to a child playing with one, or to an aircraft pilot blinded by a child playing with one.



MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #152 on: March 02, 2016, 01:21:31 PM »
A nuke is banned, of course, but for a completely different reasons.

Is private ownership of nukes actually "banned," or is it merely a practical impossibility?

No, they are actually banned.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #153 on: March 02, 2016, 01:28:31 PM »
The US managed to have 1/3 of the population get its way - 1/3 didn't care, and 1/3 were loyal to Britain and ended up as political refugees

This is way off topic already, but this above statistic is made up.  There certainly were loyalists in the US colonies, but there were not nearly one-third of the population.  Closer to half or more of the population didn't care at all, and only about 3% of the population actively participated in the US revolutionary war in any capacity.  After the war, loyalists were offered passage to Great Britain, most did not accept it; so just how loyal were they?

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #154 on: March 02, 2016, 01:34:18 PM »
The guy who posted made up quotes to prove his point on this very page is concerned about intellectual honesty all of a sudden?  O.o

I did not post made up quotes.  They are real quotes.



Let me refresh your memory, we're a whole page away from the last time I had to point this out to you now:

Quote
"If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would have!"
- Diane Feinstein

Here's the actual quote, which came during a 60 minutes interview where she discusses a loophole that allowed people to buy assault weapons that she had tried to restrict:

Quote from: actual quote
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn ‘em all in,’ I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.’"

You both made up your quote rather than finding the correct one, and then deliberately took it out of context to change it's meaning.  So yeah, intellectually dishonest.  How would you describe it?





Quote
At least you're maintaining consistency by continuing to obfuscate and ignore my point, which was that the 2nd amendment isn't a blanket allowance of all types of weapons.  Doing so by spending the bulk of your post against a straw man (that I'm equating nukes with guns) gives it a nice 'MoonShadow' touch.

I'm not the one who brought up nukes, GutairStv.  You did.

Sure, as an example of a weapon that you can't own.  I did not compare nukes to guns, which is why your straw man argument against nukes being compared to guns seemed a little out of place.




And adding in an insult towards my intellectual honesty is a nice touch.

Thanks, but really you take most of the credit for it.  I wouldn't have pointed it out without you first being dishonest, and then accusing me of being so.



Quote
Since it seems very important to you, I'm not familiar with the technical difference between a cannon and a gun.  Could you enlighten me please?

Bore size & the necessity of a crew (more than one person) to use or move it.  Any rifled firearm of a larger caliber than .50 is not a Class I weapon, by definition, and is regulated at the federal level.  This really is not in dispute in the US.

Thanks.  I was just curious if there was a technical differentiation, having always seen a cannon as just being a big gun.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2016, 01:36:49 PM by GuitarStv »

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4751
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #155 on: March 02, 2016, 01:37:44 PM »
A nuke is banned, of course, but for a completely different reasons.

Is private ownership of nukes actually "banned," or is it merely a practical impossibility?

No, they are actually banned.

Hmm. Sounds unconstitutional, but nobody's likely to gain standing to challenge it...

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #156 on: March 02, 2016, 01:46:54 PM »
A nuke is banned, of course, but for a completely different reasons.

Is private ownership of nukes actually "banned," or is it merely a practical impossibility?

No, they are actually banned.

Hmm. Sounds unconstitutional, but nobody's likely to gain standing to challenge it...

It also wouldn't fly, because it is constitutional, if only because of international treaties regarding nuclear weapons.  Treaties approved by the US Senate have the force of law equal to the US Constitution.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #157 on: March 02, 2016, 02:02:06 PM »
The guy who posted made up quotes to prove his point on this very page is concerned about intellectual honesty all of a sudden?  O.o

I did not post made up quotes.  They are real quotes.



Let me refresh your memory, we're a whole page away from the last time I had to point this out to you now:

Quote
"If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would have!"
- Diane Feinstein

Here's the actual quote, which came during a 60 minutes interview where she discusses a loophole that allowed people to buy assault weapons that she had tried to restrict:

Quote from: actual quote
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn ‘em all in,’ I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.’"

You both made up your quote rather than finding the correct one, and then deliberately took it out of context to change it's meaning.  So yeah, intellectually dishonest.  How would you describe it?


Simple research error.  I found that quote online, already out of context.  I considered that a possibility in advance (in general), which is one reason that I provided as many different quotes from as many different people as I had the time for.  Are you going to claim that they are all out of context?

Quote

Quote
At least you're maintaining consistency by continuing to obfuscate and ignore my point, which was that the 2nd amendment isn't a blanket allowance of all types of weapons.  Doing so by spending the bulk of your post against a straw man (that I'm equating nukes with guns) gives it a nice 'MoonShadow' touch.

I'm not the one who brought up nukes, GutairStv.  You did.

Sure, as an example of a weapon that you can't own.  I did not compare nukes to guns, which is why your straw man argument against nukes being compared to guns seemed a little out of place.


Naming a nuke as a weapon that I can't own, and then asking your opposition to justify the distinction (under an "absolute" right), is a comparison.  You did it, stop pretending.

Quote

And adding in an insult towards my intellectual honesty is a nice touch.

Thanks, but really you take most of the credit for it.  I wouldn't have pointed it out without you first being dishonest, and then accusing me of being so.

Of course, you would say that.  Still doesn't make it so.  Keep repeating it though, and someone is bound to buy it.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4751
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #158 on: March 02, 2016, 02:15:59 PM »
It also wouldn't fly, because it is constitutional, if only because of international treaties regarding nuclear weapons.  Treaties approved by the US Senate have the force of law equal to the US Constitution.

Good point. I should have thought of that myself, given that I'm pretty sure I complained in another thread about recent treaties (e.g. the TPP) being effectively omnibus bills of shit Congress can't pass legitimately, or that would be unconstitutional otherwise.

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Age: 34
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #159 on: March 02, 2016, 02:33:48 PM »
It also wouldn't fly, because it is constitutional, if only because of international treaties regarding nuclear weapons.  Treaties approved by the US Senate have the force of law equal to the US Constitution.

Good point. I should have thought of that myself, given that I'm pretty sure I complained in another thread about recent treaties (e.g. the TPP) being effectively omnibus bills of shit Congress can't pass legitimately, or that would be unconstitutional otherwise.

As far as I'm aware, and through multiple discussion on the subject like:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/22/1/case.html
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/354/1.html

No treaty or law supersedes Article VI of the Constitution. The Constitution has no equal. However, treaties and acts of law by Congress are roughly equal.

Cathy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1043
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #160 on: March 02, 2016, 03:11:38 PM »
MoonShadow was imprecise in his phrasing but presumably what he was referring to was the fact that current US law arguably allows the federal government to obtain new powers by making treaties, even if the powers are not otherwise authorised by the Constitution. For a discussion of the history of the current state of affairs and also a criticism of it, see the concurring opinion of the late Justice Scalia in Bond v. United States, 564 US ___, 134 S Ct 2077, 2094 (2014). My link takes you directly to Justice Scalia's concurrence.

The issue in Bond was whether a treaty had allowed the federal government to criminalise purely local, simple assaults. Applying what it considered to be clear and binding Supreme Court precedent, the Third Circuit found in 681 F 3d 149 (2012) that the treaty in question had indeed given Congress the power to pass a statute to criminalise simple assault, even though that would not be otherwise constitutional.

The majority of the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Third Circuit on the ground that the criminal statute was ambiguous and, as a matter of statutory interpretation, should be read down so as not to cover simple assaults. Reading the statute that way, it was not necessary to consider whether Congress's power had been enlarged by the treaty.

Justice Scalia wrote separately because he would have reached the constitutional issue and overturned the Court's precedents that arguably allow treaties to expand the power of the federal government beyond what is explicitly authorised in the Constitution. Justice Scalia's opinion is not the law, but it contains a good discussion of this topic.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2016, 03:20:30 PM by Cathy »
This post contains only general information on the issues raised by this topic. This post does not provide help tailored to your specific situation. There are many facts that could be relevant to your specific situation and I am not in possession of those facts. If you need help tailored to your specific situation, you should retain an appropriate professional and not rely on this post.

spartana

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3599
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #161 on: March 02, 2016, 04:15:17 PM »
I also am pro gun control and support stricter gun laws like we have in Calif but not bans.

Curious, what additional laws does California have that are more stringent than federal regs?
The Feds generally don't regulate gun laws, with a few exception such as banning some types of firearms,

I suspect that you were over-simplifying for the uninitiated audience, Spartana, but the fact is that there really is no such thing as a federal weapons ban.  What happens is that special licenses are required for Class II & Class III weapons, that are typically expensive & heavily regulated.  Even the "assault weapons ban" of the Clinton era didn't ban any weapons, and particularly not actual assault weapons, which are already regulated as Class III weapons.

To interrupt the confusion in advance; a Class III weapon is either anything one might consider a "machine gun", an automatic weapon, or an explosive weapon, whereas a Class II weapon is the "miscellaneous" group that doesn't fit into either Class I (typical semi-automatic handguns & rifles, of a caliber of .50 or less) and doesn't fit into Class III (as noted above, weapons of exclusive military applications).  The kinds of items that are in Class II included firearms that are disguised such as pen guns, suppression devices & 'bang sticks'.  It is possible to get the licenses necessary for these items, in states that permit it (not California, which is one reason action films often have to be filmed at a studio in Arizona or on location.   Yes, those guns they use on film are often the real thing) but it is an extremely expensive process involving the civilian equivalent of a national security clearance.  I know this because there are a lot of wealthy rednecks in this region, and they like to spend money doing things like this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MBf_LvqUsQ

BTW, Knob Creek gun range, where this event is filmed twice a year, is only a 20 minute drive beyond the city limits of Louisville, Kentucky.  Roughly half way to Fort Knox.  The GE Minigun can be rented, but the renter has to buy their own ammo, which costs about $200 for enough ammo to last about 25 seconds.  Not mustachian at all.

I would argue that automatic firearms are almost/effectively banned, since the only ones you can purchase as a private citizen are ones registered prior to the 1986 FOPA.  Certainly any automatic firearms manufactured after 1986 are banned by default, as they could not have been registered prior.  There isn't a special license required - just a $200 tax stamp and some federal paperwork.
True. While technically there hasn't been an official ban since the federal AWB ended in 2004, there is no way a private citizen can buy a full auto weapon unless it's pre-1986.
Retired at 42 to play!

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #162 on: March 02, 2016, 04:49:32 PM »
MoonShadow was imprecise in his phrasing but presumably what he was referring to was the fact that current US law arguably allows the federal government to obtain new powers by making treaties, even if the powers are not otherwise authorized by the Constitution.

Yes,  thank you Cathy; that was impressively thorough.  I'm not of the opinion that it should be that way; however, as I believe that the US Constitution should supersede any treaty, and that any treaty that violates the US Constitution shouldn't be ratifiable at all.  But that said, it is how it is.  Firearms are a no-no on a sailboat in international waters for a similar reason; whether or not the ship flies the US flag, unless they are part of a sanctioned navy.  And my 1st & 4th amendment rights are limited by international treaty, whenever I pick up my ham radio; and violations are severely punished.  One does not simply upset the FCC and get away with it.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #163 on: March 02, 2016, 05:49:01 PM »
Who has ever said that they want to take all guns away from US citizens though?  My understanding was that occasionally people talk about limiting magazine size, reducing access to semi-automatic weapons, stuff like that.  I've never heard anyone propose taking away shotguns and single shot rifles though . . . am I missing something?

Guitarstv - This is a recent article with President Obama praising Australian gun control  which as I understand it is effectively confiscation-

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/23/obama-backs-australias-gun-laws-while-condemning-latest-mass-shootings-in-us

You understand incorrectly.  Australians can still buy firearms (rifles, shotguns, hand guns, etc.) as long as they follow the regulations in place.  There was no confiscation of all guns, just enforced regulation.

Steve:

From wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_buyback_program

"Australia had buyback schemes in 1996 and 2003. Both schemes were compulsory, and involved compensation paid to owners of firearms made illegal by gun law changes and surrendered to the government. Bought back firearms were destroyed."

Respectfully, I don't misunderstand.  What happened in Australia was confiscation.  Obama's not the only one praising it http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-gun-buybacks_us_56216331e4b02f6a900c5d67

I'm not saying they confiscated all guns, but once it starts it won't stop.

No thanks.

It was a compulsory buy-back of guns that would now not be allowed, so automatics and semi-automatic guns and a few others.

My dad had  guns, he didn't have to hand them in and still has guns to this day. Same with most people I know who had guns.

This article implies that gun ownership in Australia has actually risen since the banning of semi-automatic firearms.  How true is it, I wonder?

http://louderwithcrowder.com/australian-gun-ownership-rises-gun-crime-remains-low-america-still-at-fault/#.VteEBFJkZwI

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5179
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #164 on: March 02, 2016, 07:13:43 PM »
You seem to have missed the main point of my post, which was that our histories are different, the evolution of our governments was different, and therefore we have wildly different attitudes to gun ownership and legislation.  So this means Americans should not be surprised when people from other countries don't understand the American attitude towards guns.  It truly seems strange to us, the strong attachment people show.

Anyway, to continue sort of off topic:
Re % Loyalists, sources differ (I did a quick Google, so as not to be going from memory, and my original %s were not meant to be precise).  Given the times, many sources only talk about adult white men - which excludes women, children, and non-whites.  Even some Patriot sources talk about 1/3 or more in opposition.  And of course many were pretty quiet about their political preferences, when the alternative was to be tarred and feathered and have their houses burned down.  The Patriots played pretty rough at times.

Why would you think that Loyalists were not loyal if they did not return to Great Britain? Their lives were in North America. They went to other British colonies and started over.   It was a huge diaspora. 

Those in the south went to Florida, the Bahamas and Bermuda.  The Loyalist settlers had a huge impact on the development of Canada. People on the northern coast went by ship to Nova Scotia - there were so many that they ended up becoming a new province, New Brunswick.  Those further inland hiked north and west, and settled in the western parts of Quebec, and are now known as the settlers in the Eastern Townships of Quebec and large parts of south eastern Ontario.  These Loyalists were why the original colony of Quebec was split into Upper and Lower Canada, which became Ontario and Quebec after Confederation.  St. John (New Brunswick) still proudly proclaims itself The Loyalist City.  I saw a large sign saying this when I took the ferry from Digby Nova Scotia to St. John a few years ago.  My great-great grandmother's family were UEL and proud of it.  The house of the War of 1812 heroine Laura Ingersoll Secord, a United Empire Loyalist (as was her husband Thomas Secord) is now a museum and park.  People remember.

End OT.
The US managed to have 1/3 of the population get its way - 1/3 didn't care, and 1/3 were loyal to Britain and ended up as political refugees

This is way off topic already, but this above statistic is made up.  There certainly were loyalists in the US colonies, but there were not nearly one-third of the population.  Closer to half or more of the population didn't care at all, and only about 3% of the population actively participated in the US revolutionary war in any capacity.  After the war, loyalists were offered passage to Great Britain, most did not accept it; so just how loyal were they?

Tom Bri

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 514
  • Location: Small Town, Flyover Country
  • More just cheap, than Mustachian
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #165 on: March 02, 2016, 07:33:51 PM »
http://www.smh.com.au/national/australia-reloads-as-gun-amnesties-fail-to-cut-arms-20130113-2cnnq.html
This article claims Aussie gun ownership is rising.
It was surprisingly hard to Google for crime stats for Australia. Easy to get a few years, but charts like you see for the US going back more than a decade didn't appear. I am sure they are out there somewhere, but I didn't see them. Still it appears Australia has a low and possibly somewhat declining violent crime rate. One note I saw said that about half of Aussi murders were done with a knife.
Not surprising. It's the people, not the tool. The US has lots of violent people, compared to Aus or Canada. People of British descent in the US also have very low crime rates. Swedes anywhere in the world remain Swedes. The crime rate for Japanese Americans is astonishingly low, just like the Japanese in Japan. If people want to be violent, they will be.
The US mass murder level is comparable to that in Europe. It's the everyday street criminal that the US abounds in, compared to most western countries.

Cathy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1043
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #166 on: March 02, 2016, 07:47:03 PM »
You seem to have missed the main point of my post, which was that our histories are different, the evolution of our governments was different, and therefore we have wildly different attitudes to gun ownership and legislation.  So this means Americans should not be surprised when people from other countries don't understand the American attitude towards guns.  It truly seems strange to us, the strong attachment people show. ...
(Emphasis mine.)

This may be true of some Canadians, such as perhaps you and GuitarStv, but certainly not all of them. Canada is not a hive mind, and there are a variety of opinions among the general populace on the private ownership of handguns and other firearms and the regulation thereof. In fact, as recently as 2000, the Province of Alberta brought a court action challenging the constitutionality of the federal statutory scheme regulating firearms. Reference re Firearms Act, 2000 SCC 31, [2000] 1 SCR 783. Although Alberta lost, the fact that it brought the case at all suggests that opinion on firearms is not uniform across Canada.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2016, 08:10:11 PM by Cathy »
This post contains only general information on the issues raised by this topic. This post does not provide help tailored to your specific situation. There are many facts that could be relevant to your specific situation and I am not in possession of those facts. If you need help tailored to your specific situation, you should retain an appropriate professional and not rely on this post.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #167 on: March 02, 2016, 08:21:53 PM »
You seem to have missed the main point of my post, which was that our histories are different, the evolution of our governments was different, and therefore we have wildly different attitudes to gun ownership and legislation.  So this means Americans should not be surprised when people from other countries don't understand the American attitude towards guns.  It truly seems strange to us, the strong attachment people show.

I don't think any American gun owner gives a rat's ass about what Canadians or Aussies or Kiwis or Brits or anyone else thinks about our guns. In fact, many of us are mystified why you would care if we have guns in our homes or not. You don't see us lobbying for every Aussie to keep a handgun under their bed. It's a very personal decision - Canadians are comfortable allowing their government to decide what they can and cannot use to defend themselves and their families. Americans wish to decide for themselves.

No one is saying "ban ALL guns", just like no one is saying "I need a nuke to keep my family safe."   Everyone respects there are limits to U.S. gun ownership - it's where we draw the line that matters.  Right now, most people are actually pretty comfortable with where the lines are, which is why the laws haven't changed.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5179
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #168 on: March 02, 2016, 08:42:35 PM »
If I never visited the US, I would not care at all what Americans do with guns.  Since I do, it makes sense for me to know what is happening there.  However, a lot (not all) of Americans seem to react very strongly when non-Americans ask for explanations of the rational for gun ownership.  We are simply trying to understand you. 

Also, what you do does affect us, since we are next to you.  Most of the illegal hand guns in Canada are smuggled in from the US (http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/ci-rc/reports-rapports/traf/index-eng.htm).  Thanks so much. Not.

You seem to think we let our government decide for us.  No, there have been public pressures for various aspects of gun legislation, including the long-gun registry as a direct result of public pressure after Ecole Poytechnique, and then its cancellation after other pressures.  And of course we have the ever-present discussion about Federal/Provincial areas of legislation as exemplified by the Alberta court case Cathy mentioned.  In some ways it might be simpler if it were an area of provincial jurisdiction, since provinces differ radically in their urban/rural splits, but basically it is federal and we live with that.

Actually, given how many Americans die in accidental deaths involving guns, I do care, in an impersonal "I care about people in general" way.  Especially for the children.  Plus it just seems like such a stressful and negative way to live.

You seem to have missed the main point of my post, which was that our histories are different, the evolution of our governments was different, and therefore we have wildly different attitudes to gun ownership and legislation.  So this means Americans should not be surprised when people from other countries don't understand the American attitude towards guns.  It truly seems strange to us, the strong attachment people show.

I don't think any American gun owner gives a rat's ass about what Canadians or Aussies or Kiwis or Brits or anyone else thinks about our guns. In fact, many of us are mystified why you would care if we have guns in our homes or not. You don't see us lobbying for every Aussie to keep a handgun under their bed. It's a very personal decision - Canadians are comfortable allowing their government to decide what they can and cannot use to defend themselves and their families. Americans wish to decide for themselves.

No one is saying "ban ALL guns", just like no one is saying "I need a nuke to keep my family safe."   Everyone respects there are limits to U.S. gun ownership - it's where we draw the line that matters.  Right now, most people are actually pretty comfortable with where the lines are, which is why the laws haven't changed.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #169 on: March 02, 2016, 10:44:12 PM »
Actually, given how many Americans die in accidental deaths involving guns, I do care, in an impersonal "I care about people in general" way.  Especially for the children.  Plus it just seems like such a stressful and negative way to live.

I agree. Worrying about the incredibly unlikely event of being unintentionally killed by a firearm in the United States would be a very stressful way to live. Considering (According to the CDC http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6215a1.htm) that you're about 6 times more likely to be killed crossing the street than you are to be accidentally shot, I'd say even carrying in a general sort of way should put firearms generally further down the list of worries.
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 #170 on: March 02, 2016, 11:16:32 PM »
If I never visited the US, I would not care at all what Americans do with guns.  Since I do, it makes sense for me to know what is happening there.  However, a lot (not all) of Americans seem to react very strongly when non-Americans ask for explanations of the rational for gun ownership.  We are simply trying to understand you. 

Also, what you do does affect us, since we are next to you.  Most of the illegal hand guns in Canada are smuggled in from the US (http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/ci-rc/reports-rapports/traf/index-eng.htm).  Thanks so much. Not.

You seem to think we let our government decide for us.  No, there have been public pressures for various aspects of gun legislation, including the long-gun registry as a direct result of public pressure after Ecole Poytechnique, and then its cancellation after other pressures.  And of course we have the ever-present discussion about Federal/Provincial areas of legislation as exemplified by the Alberta court case Cathy mentioned.  In some ways it might be simpler if it were an area of provincial jurisdiction, since provinces differ radically in their urban/rural splits, but basically it is federal and we live with that.

Actually, given how many Americans die in accidental deaths involving guns, I do care, in an impersonal "I care about people in general" way.  Especially for the children.  Plus it just seems like such a stressful and negative way to live.

You seem to have missed the main point of my post, which was that our histories are different, the evolution of our governments was different, and therefore we have wildly different attitudes to gun ownership and legislation.  So this means Americans should not be surprised when people from other countries don't understand the American attitude towards guns.  It truly seems strange to us, the strong attachment people show.

I don't think any American gun owner gives a rat's ass about what Canadians or Aussies or Kiwis or Brits or anyone else thinks about our guns. In fact, many of us are mystified why you would care if we have guns in our homes or not. You don't see us lobbying for every Aussie to keep a handgun under their bed. It's a very personal decision - Canadians are comfortable allowing their government to decide what they can and cannot use to defend themselves and their families. Americans wish to decide for themselves.

No one is saying "ban ALL guns", just like no one is saying "I need a nuke to keep my family safe."   Everyone respects there are limits to U.S. gun ownership - it's where we draw the line that matters.  Right now, most people are actually pretty comfortable with where the lines are, which is why the laws haven't changed.

Well then, you should be absolutely horrified at the number of swimming pool deaths in this country.

Especially the children.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #171 on: March 02, 2016, 11:19:14 PM »
Finally! Someone is thinking of the children! 
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 #172 on: March 03, 2016, 05:59:56 AM »
I don't think any American gun owner gives a rat's ass about what Canadians or Aussies or Kiwis or Brits or anyone else thinks about our guns. In fact, many of us are mystified why you would care if we have guns in our homes or not. You don't see us lobbying for every Aussie to keep a handgun under their bed. It's a very personal decision - Canadians are comfortable allowing their government to decide what they can and cannot use to defend themselves and their families. Americans wish to decide for themselves.

Unfortunately, the actions that the US takes related to gun control directly effect it's neighbours.  Because the US doesn't need background checks for most private sales, or keep records of gun sales it's pretty easy for a criminal to get weapons.  Weapons used in crime also become very difficult to trace.

This means that there ends up being a lot of spillover into Canada (70% of the guns used in crimes in my city alone come from the US - http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/crossfire-the-battle-over-gun-control-in-america-1.1333715?cmp=rss).  The problem of US guns also exists for Mexico (http://www.marketplace.org/2012/09/10/world/mexican-activists-call-change-us-gun-industry).

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3352
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #173 on: March 03, 2016, 06:56:04 AM »
I don't think any American gun owner gives a rat's ass about what Canadians or Aussies or Kiwis or Brits or anyone else thinks about our guns. In fact, many of us are mystified why you would care if we have guns in our homes or not. You don't see us lobbying for every Aussie to keep a handgun under their bed. It's a very personal decision - Canadians are comfortable allowing their government to decide what they can and cannot use to defend themselves and their families. Americans wish to decide for themselves.

Unfortunately, the actions that the US takes related to gun control directly effect it's neighbours.  Because the US doesn't need background checks for most private sales, or keep records of gun sales it's pretty easy for a criminal to get weapons.  Weapons used in crime also become very difficult to trace.

This means that there ends up being a lot of spillover into Canada (70% of the guns used in crimes in my city alone come from the US - http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/crossfire-the-battle-over-gun-control-in-america-1.1333715?cmp=rss).  The problem of US guns also exists for Mexico (http://www.marketplace.org/2012/09/10/world/mexican-activists-call-change-us-gun-industry).

According to the ATF, a majority of guns used in crime come from gun dealers.

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5179
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #174 on: March 03, 2016, 07:19:25 AM »
That is the US.  Here handguns are not sold like long guns are, so they have to come from somewhere else, and mostly they come from the US (illegally).  Which was the point GuitarStv and I were trying to make, that what one country does can affect its neighbours.  We both posted links (different ones, there are lots) making this point.

Sure I can go to a sporting goods store and buy a gun (after I pass the gun safety course and get a license) but I can't buy a handgun. 

According to the ATF, a majority of guns used in crime come from gun dealers.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3352
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #175 on: March 03, 2016, 07:22:40 AM »
That is the US.  Here handguns are not sold like long guns are, so they have to come from somewhere else, and mostly they come from the US (illegally).  Which was the point GuitarStv and I were trying to make, that what one country does can affect its neighbours.  We both posted links (different ones, there are lots) making this point.

Sure I can go to a sporting goods store and buy a gun (after I pass the gun safety course and get a license) but I can't buy a handgun. 

According to the ATF, a majority of guns used in crime come from gun dealers.

I was responding to this in particular:
Quote
Because the US doesn't need background checks for most private sales, or keep records of gun sales it's pretty easy for a criminal to get weapons.
Are you saying that the majority of guns illegally brought into Canada were only brought in because it's possible to buy one through a private sale in the US without a background check, despite the ATF's claim that the majority of guns used in crime are sold through straw purchases or corrupt dealers?

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #176 on: March 03, 2016, 07:27:17 AM »
According to the ATF, a majority of guns used in crime come from gun dealers.

Right.

As demonstrated by the article you posted, insufficient regulation has created this situation.  If there was a registry of who owns what gun, the two most common ways that criminals get their weapons (straw purchasers and corrupt gun dealers) would be caught in short order.

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5179
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #177 on: March 03, 2016, 07:32:43 AM »
Well then, you should be absolutely horrified at the number of swimming pool deaths in this country.

Especially the children.

Well, we are working on that too.  From the Canadian Red Cross:
Most drowning victims were males between the ages of 15 and 74. Males in these age groups had the highest drowning rates, followed by children between 1 and 4. The risk profile by age changed during the 1990’s. In the early 1990’s, 1 to 4 year old toddlers had the highest drowning rates in Canada; however, the greatest improvements in drowning rates between 1991-1995 and 1996-2000 were among infants less than 1 year old, 53%, and toddlers, 34%. There was also significant improvement for males between the ages of 5 and 44, but less improvement for men 45 and older.

I trust the US is too? 


And my we are getting off topic.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1077
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #178 on: March 03, 2016, 07:38:21 AM »
That is the US.  Here handguns are not sold like long guns are, so they have to come from somewhere else, and mostly they come from the US (illegally).  Which was the point GuitarStv and I were trying to make, that what one country does can affect its neighbours.  We both posted links (different ones, there are lots) making this point.

Sure I can go to a sporting goods store and buy a gun (after I pass the gun safety course and get a license) but I can't buy a handgun. 

According to the ATF, a majority of guns used in crime come from gun dealers.

Retired - If the US would enforce the straw buyer provision, go after felons attempting to buy guns, hire enough FBI agents to do background checks (Obama did do this), and go after unlicensed dealers with a clear standard of what a gun dealer is (10 guns a year?) that would go a long way to towards solving these problems. 

Rather than do that, within the last year - Obama has proposed a murky definition of what a gun dealer is (as little as one gun sale), the ATF has attempted to ban commonly available ammunition through a change in definition, and Obama (and other lawmakers) have continued to waste political capital discussing "assault weapons" which are involved a minority of US crimes (most are handguns).

With regard to our Southern neighbor, I think their crime and corruption are a bigger problem than US guns.  Given the level of organization of their criminals, I suspect other sources than the US could be found for weapons if the US dried up.  If Trump gets elected, maybe the wall will stop the guns from getting into Mexico.

Steve - With regard to the registry, that's not happening in the US.  Didn't Canada give up on that?  That's how I read this article -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Firearms_Registry
« Last Edit: March 03, 2016, 07:44:56 AM by Midwest »

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3352
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #179 on: March 03, 2016, 07:55:09 AM »
According to the ATF, a majority of guns used in crime come from gun dealers.

Right.

As demonstrated by the article you posted, insufficient regulation has created this situation.  If there was a registry of who owns what gun, the two most common ways that criminals get their weapons (straw purchasers and corrupt gun dealers) would be caught in short order.
Insufficient enforcement has created this situation.

And that's the problem - your thought process is "make more laws", while existing laws aren't even being properly enforced.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #180 on: March 03, 2016, 07:56:38 AM »
That is the US.  Here handguns are not sold like long guns are, so they have to come from somewhere else, and mostly they come from the US (illegally).  Which was the point GuitarStv and I were trying to make, that what one country does can affect its neighbours.  We both posted links (different ones, there are lots) making this point.

Sure I can go to a sporting goods store and buy a gun (after I pass the gun safety course and get a license) but I can't buy a handgun. 

According to the ATF, a majority of guns used in crime come from gun dealers.

Retired - If the US would enforce the straw buyer provision, go after felons attempting to buy guns, hire enough FBI agents to do background checks (Obama did do this), and go after unlicensed dealers with a clear standard of what a gun dealer is (10 guns a year?) that would go a long way to towards solving these problems. 

Rather than do that, within the last year - Obama has proposed a murky definition of what a gun dealer is (as little as one gun sale), the ATF has attempted to ban commonly available ammunition through a change in definition, and Obama (and other lawmakers) have continued to waste political capital discussing "assault weapons" which are involved a minority of US crimes (most are handguns).

With regard to our Southern neighbor, I think their crime and corruption are a bigger problem than US guns.  Given the level of organization of their criminals, I suspect other sources than the US could be found for weapons if the US dried up.  If Trump gets elected, maybe the wall will stop the guns from getting into Mexico.

Steve - With regard to the registry, that's not happening in the US.  Didn't Canada give up on that?  That's how I read this article -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Firearms_Registry

The right wing government that just lost power abolished the firearms registry over the protests of law enforcement agencies.  All restricted and prohibited firearms still need to be registered in Canada though, and the restricted weapons cover the ones favoured most by criminals.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #181 on: March 03, 2016, 07:58:01 AM »
According to the ATF, a majority of guns used in crime come from gun dealers.

Right.

As demonstrated by the article you posted, insufficient regulation has created this situation.  If there was a registry of who owns what gun, the two most common ways that criminals get their weapons (straw purchasers and corrupt gun dealers) would be caught in short order.
Insufficient enforcement has created this situation.

And that's the problem - your thought process is "make more laws", while existing laws aren't even being properly enforced.

How does one enforce laws against straw purchases without records to prove what's going on?  Same question for corrupt gun dealers?

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1077
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #182 on: March 03, 2016, 08:07:33 AM »
According to the ATF, a majority of guns used in crime come from gun dealers.

Right.

As demonstrated by the article you posted, insufficient regulation has created this situation.  If there was a registry of who owns what gun, the two most common ways that criminals get their weapons (straw purchasers and corrupt gun dealers) would be caught in short order.
Insufficient enforcement has created this situation.

And that's the problem - your thought process is "make more laws", while existing laws aren't even being properly enforced.

How does one enforce laws against straw purchases without records to prove what's going on?  Same question for corrupt gun dealers?


Steve - Gun dealers have records of buyers and are subject to inspection by the ATF.

You fill out a form each time you purchase a gun from a federal firearms dealer.  If you are doing straw purchases on a large scale it would come up if investigated and prosecuted.

http://www.texastribune.org/2011/08/25/texas-gun-dealer-sues-feds-over-reporting-requirem/

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #183 on: March 03, 2016, 08:23:38 AM »
According to the ATF, a majority of guns used in crime come from gun dealers.

Right.

As demonstrated by the article you posted, insufficient regulation has created this situation.  If there was a registry of who owns what gun, the two most common ways that criminals get their weapons (straw purchasers and corrupt gun dealers) would be caught in short order.
Insufficient enforcement has created this situation.

And that's the problem - your thought process is "make more laws", while existing laws aren't even being properly enforced.

How does one enforce laws against straw purchases without records to prove what's going on?  Same question for corrupt gun dealers?


Steve - Gun dealers have records of buyers and are subject to inspection by the ATF.

You fill out a form each time you purchase a gun from a federal firearms dealer.  If you are doing straw purchases on a large scale it would come up if investigated and prosecuted.

http://www.texastribune.org/2011/08/25/texas-gun-dealer-sues-feds-over-reporting-requirem/

My very (admittedly limited) understanding is that the quality of records management of dealers are hit and miss. Each individual dealer keeps their own records, some better, some worse. Any kind of straw purchase investigation would therefore require a lot of footwork going to each individual dealer which hopefully has done a decent job maintaining their records. It would be a lot better if all dealers had to enter their records into some kind of searchable database, but paranoia of jackbooted government agents breaking down door to seize everyone's guns makes that verboten.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3352
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #184 on: March 03, 2016, 08:30:37 AM »
According to the ATF, a majority of guns used in crime come from gun dealers.

Right.

As demonstrated by the article you posted, insufficient regulation has created this situation.  If there was a registry of who owns what gun, the two most common ways that criminals get their weapons (straw purchasers and corrupt gun dealers) would be caught in short order.
Insufficient enforcement has created this situation.

And that's the problem - your thought process is "make more laws", while existing laws aren't even being properly enforced.

How does one enforce laws against straw purchases without records to prove what's going on?  Same question for corrupt gun dealers?

Your argument is based on the faulty premise that there are no records - FFLs are required to maintain records of every transfer they facilitate.

I have looked into getting my C&R FFL so I could purchase 'curio and relic' firearms without going through a dealer, but the paperwork requirements are substantial -- and that's not even for selling.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #185 on: March 03, 2016, 08:46:51 AM »
According to the ATF, a majority of guns used in crime come from gun dealers.

Right.

As demonstrated by the article you posted, insufficient regulation has created this situation.  If there was a registry of who owns what gun, the two most common ways that criminals get their weapons (straw purchasers and corrupt gun dealers) would be caught in short order.
Insufficient enforcement has created this situation.

And that's the problem - your thought process is "make more laws", while existing laws aren't even being properly enforced.

How does one enforce laws against straw purchases without records to prove what's going on?  Same question for corrupt gun dealers?

Your argument is based on the faulty premise that there are no records - FFLs are required to maintain records of every transfer they facilitate.

I have looked into getting my C&R FFL so I could purchase 'curio and relic' firearms without going through a dealer, but the paperwork requirements are substantial -- and that's not even for selling.

Fair enough, I wasn't aware that records are supposed to be kept by retailers.  That obviously makes it tough to find bad dealers.

So, if there's already a gun registry . . . why the requirement that it be so shitty that it's hard to find and stop straw purchases?  Wading through millions of handwritten records would seem to hamstring law enforcement.  A central searchable database would be sensible, no?

Arguing that there should be better enforcement, while refusing to address the cause of poor enforcement seems disingenuous.

BeginnerStache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 725
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #186 on: March 03, 2016, 08:50:59 AM »
According to the ATF, a majority of guns used in crime come from gun dealers.

Right.

As demonstrated by the article you posted, insufficient regulation has created this situation.  If there was a registry of who owns what gun, the two most common ways that criminals get their weapons (straw purchasers and corrupt gun dealers) would be caught in short order.
Insufficient enforcement has created this situation.

And that's the problem - your thought process is "make more laws", while existing laws aren't even being properly enforced.

How does one enforce laws against straw purchases without records to prove what's going on?  Same question for corrupt gun dealers?

Your argument is based on the faulty premise that there are no records - FFLs are required to maintain records of every transfer they facilitate.

I have looked into getting my C&R FFL so I could purchase 'curio and relic' firearms without going through a dealer, but the paperwork requirements are substantial -- and that's not even for selling.

I could be wrong about this, but doesn't the word "corrupt" generally imply dealers who don't necessarily comply with rules/laws/regulations?

I remember (albeit several years ago), undercover folks were going to gun shows and had absolutely no problem buying guns with absolutely no paper trail. Heck they were selling and buying right out of trunks in the parking lot of the show. Just doesn't seem right. 

Blonde Lawyer

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 548
    • My Student Loan Refi Story
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #187 on: March 03, 2016, 08:54:55 AM »
My understanding is that the "background check" that occurs is just to see if you are listed as a felon or someone with a DV restraining order prohibited from owning/possessing a firearm.  Also, certain modifications (this may vary by state) are allowed to be carried by LEO only.  For example, I think in Mass a magazine can hold 10 rounds if civilian and 15 if LEO.  We purchased an off duty LEO weapon for home protection (15 rounds) and the store we purchased it from never asked for proof that my husband was a LEO.

For those interested, here is why we bought it.  My husband's use of force policy is very limited and is limited to on duty use to protect another officer, not for protecting the public.  I don't want to say what agency he is but it is specialized.  We were fine not having a firearm in the house.  But sometimes for work reasons, his firearm comes home.  (Early morning detail in opposite direction from office as an example).  In a truly worst case scenario, if there were a home invasion and he used that work firearm to protect us, he would lose his job.  So rather than ever having to deal with that, we just bought another identical firearm that is the home one.

I live in a state that is huge on gun owner rights.  I'm not taking a position on the issue but the common complaint I hear on restrictions is that the general public need to have the same level of force as the government (aka LEO) in case they need to overthrow their government.  Yup, I live in one of those states.  Most gunowners that I personally know, support limiting what type of weapon the general population can have.  For example, no bullet proof vest piercing bullets. 

I was always in favor of gun control until we had a personal threat made against us.  There is a big difference between average joe risk of home invasion and protecting yourself if someone is actively out to get you because of your profession or other reasons.  The idea of needing protection NOW but having to wait a cooling off period is concerning.  My state does not have a cooling off period but my parent's state does.  We bought our home firearm faster than I bought my car which is a bit concerning.  My parents pointed out, however, that if we were in their state, we just couldn't buy a handgun immediately.  We still could have purchased a shot gun or rifle for the home.  My state also allows open carry and occasionally there are political protesters walking down main street with a long gun strapped on them with extra ammo like Rambo just to prove that they can.  That leads to many frantic calls to the police who then have to say "as long as he's not actively threatening anyone or pointing it anyone there is nothing we can do."  This "gun rights" person is actually helping his oppositions case because now the majority of citizens want laws stopping that.  They don't want to have to wait to see if the person walking into a store with a rifle has bad intentions or not.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1077
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #188 on: March 03, 2016, 09:10:18 AM »
My understanding is that the "background check" that occurs is just to see if you are listed as a felon or someone with a DV restraining order prohibited from owning/possessing a firearm.  Also, certain modifications (this may vary by state) are allowed to be carried by LEO only.  For example, I think in Mass a magazine can hold 10 rounds if civilian and 15 if LEO.  We purchased an off duty LEO weapon for home protection (15 rounds) and the store we purchased it from never asked for proof that my husband was a LEO.

There is a federal background check requirement.  They have 3 days to make sure you are a qualified purchaser.  Many states have no requirement regarding magazine size, so they wouldn't ask if you are a LEO.


Most gunowners that I personally know, support limiting what type of weapon the general population can have.  For example, no bullet proof vest piercing bullets.

I'm not a gun or body armor expert, but I believe almost any rifle bullet will pierce the body armor worn by LEO.  The latest  attempt at banning bullets would have done nothing to change this.

I was always in favor of gun control until we had a personal threat made against us.  There is a big difference between average joe risk of home invasion and protecting yourself if someone is actively out to get you because of your profession or other reasons. 

It's unfortunate you had to deal with this and LEO's are more subject to those threats.  Having said that, who is to decide the credible threat and who has a right to self protection?   Your family's life is no more valuable than mine (and vice versa).  I believe all citizens have the right to protect themselves.

The open carry people walking around target or walmart with AR's are morons.  The gun control people who are scared to death of guns are just as bad.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4751
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #189 on: March 03, 2016, 09:45:53 AM »
So, if there's already a gun registry . . . why the requirement that it be so shitty that it's hard to find and stop straw purchases?  Wading through millions of handwritten records would seem to hamstring law enforcement.  A central searchable database would be sensible, no?

Because the NRA et. al. strenuously opposes any registry at all -- let alone an easily-searchable one -- and that's the compromise we ended up with.

Have you ever heard of "doxxing," where internet vigilantes (e.g. Anonymous) go look up publicly-available (but not easily accessible) information about people and then broadcast it in order to facilitate harassment of them?

Or, more ominously, the registration of Jews in Nazi Germany, which made it easier to round them up for the concentration camps?

Those sorts of concerns are why people resist gun registries: they see it as an invitation for harassment (or a convenient shopping list for criminals), or worse, a precursor to confiscation.

I remember (albeit several years ago), undercover folks were going to gun baseball card shows and had absolutely no problem buying guns baseball cards with absolutely no paper trail. Heck they were selling and buying right out of trunks in the parking lot of the show. Just doesn't seem right.

Does you still think it "doesn't seem right" with the changes above? That's how some people feel about gun ownership. They can come at that opinion from two different angles: one is the idea that guns are just tools and therefore there isn't a valid public interest in restricting them. The other is a Fourth Amendment / property rights-based argument that the government does not have the power to restrict (or force disclosure of) what property people own.

I'm not saying they're right or wrong, just that people with that sort of perspective exist.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #190 on: March 03, 2016, 10:13:25 AM »
I remember (albeit several years ago), undercover folks were going to gun baseball card shows and had absolutely no problem buying guns baseball cards with absolutely no paper trail. Heck they were selling and buying right out of trunks in the parking lot of the show. Just doesn't seem right.

Does you still think it "doesn't seem right" with the changes above? That's how some people feel about gun ownership. They can come at that opinion from two different angles: one is the idea that guns are just tools and therefore there isn't a valid public interest in restricting them. The other is a Fourth Amendment / property rights-based argument that the government does not have the power to restrict (or force disclosure of) what property people own.

I'm not saying they're right or wrong, just that people with that sort of perspective exist.

Given the many who die from baseball cardings each day, that's certainly a valid comparison.  :P
« Last Edit: March 03, 2016, 10:59:22 AM by GuitarStv »

MrMoogle

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 822
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Huntsville, AL
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #191 on: March 03, 2016, 10:14:27 AM »
When my grandfather passed, my uncle inherited his gun collection (14 or 15).  As a favor to my uncle, I sold them for him for a commission, and from this bought some.  Two newer hand guns, and old rifle, and two old shotguns.  On occasion I shoot the handguns and rifle.  I don't have a good place to shoot the shotguns. 

I keep all but one shotgun locked up in a gun cabinet.  It doesn't fit in the cabinet, but as I was reading this thread it occurred to me I could remove the barrel and then it would fit fine.  It stays unloaded under my bed.  I'm hoping the pump action would be enough if I ever had a break-in, although honestly, I'd probably forget it was even there.

The shotgun under my bed was my great-grandfather's.  I have a black and white picture from the 50's with him holding it.  He was a farmer and used it for hunting birds.

My other shotgun is an "unfinished" shotgun.  It is missing two stamps on it, the manufacturer's stamp and the inspector's stamp.  It's a German gun, and the owner of the manufacturing plant was Jewish.  When Hitler started rounding up Jews, the owner fled to England, closing the plant.  By my best guess, this gun was near the end of the line when it closed, and probably a worker took it home with him.  The gun dealer who found out most of this info for me, found another of the same year with it's stamps.  The inspector stamp has a strong connection to my last name.  Although that side of the family has been here since the early 1800's, so I'm not sure how my grandfather's family would have any connection to relatives in Germany. 

When I sold the other guns, there wasn't really requirements on me because I'm from Alabama.  But I found a information sheet online, and got basic info from each person I sold to.  Mostly CYA. 

My grandfather also had an old shotgun with an 8 in barrel.  He might have had paperwork for it, but I never found it.  I didn't realize what it was until after I brought all the guns home, going through 4 states, I thought it was an old pistol.  If I had paperwork for it, it would have been his most valuable one, but I turned it into the police.

JordanOfGilead

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 339
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #192 on: March 03, 2016, 10:28:54 AM »
I was reading the contingency planning thread, and I realized that some of the posters feel the need to keep firearms in their house for protection.   I'm really not trolling, I'd like to understand your point of view better, because this seems foreign to me.

1.   Why don't you move to a less dangerous area?    It can't be much fun, being constantly on edge that someone is going to invade your house or assault you on the street.

2.  Do you regularly practice with your firearm?   (I used to shoot cans with a .22 when I was a kid, but that's about the limit of my experience.   When I eventually FIRE, I'd like to try some practical shooting if I can find a good range.   But I don't have time for another hobby right now.)

3.  If you have children or a spouse, how have you trained them to stay out of the way if there's an incident?  i.e. so they don't get shot?

4.  How to you plan to deal with the first responders after an incident?    Will the police arrest you?   Do you have a lawyer ready to call on your phone?  Or does your jurisdiction take the view that you're allowed to shoot in your home, so you don't expect to have issues with the authorities?

For the record, we don't have any firearms in the house.   In fact, DW can't stand them, so we're not likely to anytime soon.
Before reading the thread I want to give my two cents on why DW and I DO keep firearms in the house.
1. We don't necessarily live in a dangerous area (although it isn't the BEST neighborhood), but DW has some dangerous family members that we suspect may show up unannounced with ill intentions at some point.
2. I regularly practice with my firearm. I have a 12 gage and a .22 and take them to a range when I can as well as using snap caps (dummy rounds) to practice clearing the house about once or twice a month. DW Is familiar with safety and function and knows how to use both weapons, but doesn't practice nearly as much as I do (need to talk to her about that).
3. We don't have children, but we do have a cat and a dog. DW knows to stay out of the line of fire, cat has a hiding place nowhere near any entry points in our home that he retreats to when he senses that I'm on edge, and dog is very good at listening to commands from myself and DW and doing what he is told, even if it goes against instinct.
4. We plan on dealing with first responders (god forbid we ever have to) the same way we have in the past for less severe incidents. As calmly as possible, no sudden movements, make sure they are immediately aware that there are firearms present (as well as where and what specifically they are). It is likely that myself and/or DW will be temporarily detained but there are laws in our area that permit use of lethal force against trespassers on private property. There are some details in the law that you have to be careful about (they have to be in the home, not on your front lawn, you can't shoot a trespasser in the back or while they are attempting to flee, etc.), but assuming the law is obeyed, we don't expect any legal issues. Additionally, given the unique situation we are in, we know the people we anticipate needing firearms to protect ourselves from and dealing with the police/courts/jail is a lot better than what would happen if we didn't have anything with which to protect ourselves.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3352
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #193 on: March 03, 2016, 10:37:14 AM »
My understanding is that the "background check" that occurs is just to see if you are listed as a felon or someone with a DV restraining order prohibited from owning/possessing a firearm.  Also, certain modifications (this may vary by state) are allowed to be carried by LEO only.  For example, I think in Mass a magazine can hold 10 rounds if civilian and 15 if LEO.  We purchased an off duty LEO weapon for home protection (15 rounds) and the store we purchased it from never asked for proof that my husband was a LEO.

There is a federal background check requirement.  They have 3 days to make sure you are a qualified purchaser.  Many states have no requirement regarding magazine size, so they wouldn't ask if you are a LEO.


Most gunowners that I personally know, support limiting what type of weapon the general population can have.  For example, no bullet proof vest piercing bullets.

I'm not a gun or body armor expert, but I believe almost any rifle bullet will pierce the body armor worn by LEO.  The latest  attempt at banning bullets would have done nothing to change this.

I was always in favor of gun control until we had a personal threat made against us.  There is a big difference between average joe risk of home invasion and protecting yourself if someone is actively out to get you because of your profession or other reasons. 

It's unfortunate you had to deal with this and LEO's are more subject to those threats.  Having said that, who is to decide the credible threat and who has a right to self protection?   Your family's life is no more valuable than mine (and vice versa).  I believe all citizens have the right to protect themselves.

The open carry people walking around target or walmart with AR's are morons.  The gun control people who are scared to death of guns are just as bad.

This is true. Basically any common centerfire rifle round will penetrate a standard vest like it's not even there. I had a small hard plate in my vest which may have helped if I was shot at enough of an angle, but it was a small area and for a straight-on hit with almost any rifle round I would've been a goner.

JordanOfGilead

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 339
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #194 on: March 03, 2016, 10:43:48 AM »
I am surprised that people will buy a gun for home protection before hardening their doors and windows against forced entry. Also, some people will open their door to talk to anyone that knocks.
Everybody knows not to show up at our house unannounced if they don't want to risk bodily harm (for the reason mentioned in a previous comment).

spartana

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3599
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #195 on: March 03, 2016, 10:53:46 AM »
I am surprised that people will buy a gun for home protection before hardening their doors and windows against forced entry. Also, some people will open their door to talk to anyone that knocks.
Everybody knows not to show up at our house unannounced if they don't want to risk bodily harm (for the reason mentioned in a previous comment).
umm....you don't have to answer the door ya know and they'll just leave eventually. Can't see any reason you'd need to scare them off unless they were trying to break in. As a gun owner of multiple types of firearms in the home (and also a handgun when travelling) I've never had to use it to shoo anyone off my property - at least not someone who's knocking on my door innocently.
Retired at 42 to play!

BeginnerStache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 725
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #196 on: March 03, 2016, 10:56:59 AM »
I remember (albeit several years ago), undercover folks were going to gun baseball card shows and had absolutely no problem buying guns baseball cards with absolutely no paper trail. Heck they were selling and buying right out of trunks in the parking lot of the show. Just doesn't seem right.

Does you still think it "doesn't seem right" with the changes above? That's how some people feel about gun ownership. They can come at that opinion from two different angles: one is the idea that guns are just tools and therefore there isn't a valid public interest in restricting them. The other is a Fourth Amendment / property rights-based argument that the government does not have the power to restrict (or force disclosure of) what property people own.

I'm not saying they're right or wrong, just that people with that sort of perspective exist.

Given the many who die each day from baseball cardings each day, that's certainly a valid comparison.  :P

Papercuts are serious business. Some even require extensive applications of first aid ointment and Band-Aids. Many a family have been torn apart due to baseball card violence. Certainly a valid comparison.

BeginnerStache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 725
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #197 on: March 03, 2016, 11:06:48 AM »
I am surprised that people will buy a gun for home protection before hardening their doors and windows against forced entry. Also, some people will open their door to talk to anyone that knocks.
Everybody knows not to show up at our house unannounced if they don't want to risk bodily harm (for the reason mentioned in a previous comment).

Wow I can't imagine living in that kind of neighborhood. That must suck! I suppose I take for granted our wonderful neighbors who always have an open door (unannounced) for my kids to go play with their kids. Heck one time I left my garage door open and the neighbor knocked on our door to let us know it was still open. Can't beat a wonderful sense of community.

Mr.Bubbles

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #198 on: March 03, 2016, 11:26:50 AM »
as to the baseball card comment,

i actually threw a playing card (gambit x-men style) at a friend growing up, hit him in the eye and he couldn't see correctly for what seemed like close to a week.

however, i've never hurt anyone with any one of my firearms before... maybe i need a playing card training class, or at least keep them locked up in a safe.

JordanOfGilead

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 339
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #199 on: March 03, 2016, 11:44:40 AM »
I am surprised that people will buy a gun for home protection before hardening their doors and windows against forced entry. Also, some people will open their door to talk to anyone that knocks.
Everybody knows not to show up at our house unannounced if they don't want to risk bodily harm (for the reason mentioned in a previous comment).
umm....you don't have to answer the door ya know and they'll just leave eventually. Can't see any reason you'd need to scare them off unless they were trying to break in. As a gun owner of multiple types of firearms in the home (and also a handgun when travelling) I've never had to use it to shoo anyone off my property - at least not someone who's knocking on my door innocently.
Not always the case. Hopefully it stops being an issue, but one apartment I lived at right out of college was apparently previously leased by somebody that was being looked for by two very large gentlemen. They weren't willing to leave just because I wasn't answering the door.

[/quote]

Wow I can't imagine living in that kind of neighborhood. That must suck! I suppose I take for granted our wonderful neighbors who always have an open door (unannounced) for my kids to go play with their kids. Heck one time I left my garage door open and the neighbor knocked on our door to let us know it was still open. Can't beat a wonderful sense of community.
[/quote]
It's not the neighborhood I live in, there are other reasons to be weary of unannounced guests than a bad neighborhood. We don't have kids, so their friends coming over isn't a concern.