Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 445877 times)

Cathy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1044
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #150 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.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #151 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 #152 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: 6784
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #153 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?
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!

Tom Bri

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 550
  • Location: Small Town, Flyover Country
  • More just cheap, than Mustachian
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #154 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: 1044
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #155 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: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #156 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: 6784
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #157 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.
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 #158 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: 3842
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #159 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: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #160 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: 9131
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #161 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: 3842
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #162 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: 6784
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #163 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.
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!

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3842
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #164 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: 9131
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #165 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: 6784
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #166 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 1990ís. In the early 1990ís, 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.
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!

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1203
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #167 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: 3842
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #168 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: 9131
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #169 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: 9131
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #170 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: 1203
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #171 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 #172 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: 3842
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #173 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: 9131
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #174 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.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #175 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: 640
    • My Student Loan Refi Story
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #176 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: 1203
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #177 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: 4745
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #178 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: 9131
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #179 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: 948
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Huntsville, AL
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #180 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: 417
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #181 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: 3842
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #182 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: 417
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #183 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).

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #184 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.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #185 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: 33
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #186 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: 417
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #187 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.

Blonde Lawyer

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 640
    • My Student Loan Refi Story
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #188 on: March 03, 2016, 12:10:57 PM »
Midwest,

I think you misread my comment.  Last paragraph, don't want to go back to quote.  I'm not saying that your life is worth less than mine.  I'm saying that my personal experience made me rethink my stance on gun control laws.  Previously, when analyzing those laws I was considering the risk the average person faces of not very likely home invasion.  After my own experience, it made me realize that there are many people in this country that for whatever reason are targets.  I'm not saying just the targets should have access to guns.  I was saying it made me think that cooling off periods might not be as great as I thought they were.

I would love to see some kind of requirement that people have some firearm training.  It may not need to be to get the gun in the first place but it could be within a year of purchase.  Some minimum standards like being able to actually hit a target.  Not the bulls eye.  The silhouette.  I also totally underestimated the difficulty before I shot one myself.

But I also think everyone should have to re-certify on their driver test every so many years. 

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1203
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #189 on: March 03, 2016, 12:49:14 PM »
Midwest,

I think you misread my comment.  Last paragraph, don't want to go back to quote.  I'm not saying that your life is worth less than mine.  I'm saying that my personal experience made me rethink my stance on gun control laws.  Previously, when analyzing those laws I was considering the risk the average person faces of not very likely home invasion.  After my own experience, it made me realize that there are many people in this country that for whatever reason are targets.  I'm not saying just the targets should have access to guns.  I was saying it made me think that cooling off periods might not be as great as I thought they were.

I would love to see some kind of requirement that people have some firearm training.  It may not need to be to get the gun in the first place but it could be within a year of purchase.  Some minimum standards like being able to actually hit a target.  Not the bulls eye.  The silhouette.  I also totally underestimated the difficulty before I shot one myself.

But I also think everyone should have to re-certify on their driver test every so many years.

Thanks for the clarification.  I certainly didn't mean to insult your experience.

I don't think training should be required for purchase (constitutional issues).  For concealed carry, I think a training requirement is an excellent idea.  Personally, I took the concealed carry course primarily to improve my skills/knowledge (carried a gun 1x in 5 years).

To make an car analogy, you can buy a car w/o a license but you need a license to drive on public streets.

« Last Edit: March 03, 2016, 12:50:49 PM by Midwest »

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4745
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #190 on: March 03, 2016, 01:06:22 PM »
I don't think training should be required for purchase (constitutional issues).

Of the entire universe of possible "regulations" on private gun ownership, mandatory marksmanship training would be the least Constitutionally-problematic. The key is to realize that, at the time of writing, the phrase "a well-regulated militia" meant one that was well-trained.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #191 on: March 03, 2016, 02:17:43 PM »

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.

It was a pistol, if it was manufactured with a barrel less than 12 inches, and had a pistol grip; it only become class II if it was originally manufactured & sold with a barrel longer than 18.5 inches.  Shotgun pistols are still made & sold as normal handguns; that is what the Bond Arms' entire line is based upon, and the Taurus Judge 410 revolver also.  And if it was a .410 single shot break action, it was probably worth a fortune.  That gun is probably in some cop's safe, now.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #192 on: March 04, 2016, 01:04:24 AM »

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.

This is why the gun control debate goes no where - it takes so much time to make up ground with people who don't know the current laws that it's impossible to make progress.

Current laws already require all firearms to be tracked from the manufacturer to the dealer, and from the dealer to the customer they sold it to. It's not really 'searchable' in the way you mean, but with two phone calls the police can find out who owns the gun they found at a crime scene.

Current law already forbids selling any firearm to someone you know to be, or suspect to be, unable to legally possess that weapon. So if you think a person who will go illegally buy a gun for their felon friend will then privately register that they illegally transferred that weapon to their felon friend, I would ask why in the world you would think that? This is why educated people stress enforcing current laws, rather than adding new laws (or recreating laws that already exist, like not being able to buy guns illegal in your home state in the state next to you - already a law)



But none of this applies to the OP's question - why should any of this affect me having a weapon in my house?
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

JordanOfGilead

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 417
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #193 on: March 04, 2016, 06:23:51 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.


I guess if I had two large men hanging out at my front door and not leaving I'd call the cops. If they were trying  to break in I'd call the cops, remove myself to somewhere safe AND protect myself if needed. I'd do the same if they were stalking or harassing me. I don't care about protecting my house, car or stuff, just myself (or family) from assault or rape.
I don't think you understand how criminals that use intimidation tactics work ... You call the cops, the cops ask them to leave, they go away and wait for the cops to leave, then come back and f*ck your sh!t up because you called the cops on them, whether or not they originally had a problem with you.
Also, the police in that neighborhood weren't interested in quickly responding to much less than a shooting. Like I said, it was my first apartment out of college, so it wasn't in a great area and it was dirt cheap.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #194 on: March 04, 2016, 06:35:52 AM »
Again . . . now we're entering into discussion about the specifics and details of gun control implementation.  There's an awful lot to discuss in this area.  By no longer pretending that people interested in gun control want to ban all guns, a dialog can be started.

The problem with this "we're not looking to ban all guns" argument is that what people are doing with handgun bans/limitations is restricting what people can practically use as a defensive weapon.  Gun control advocates (GCAs) point out "you can still have a gun for hunting or target shooting" and whatnot, but what I really want is to have a weapon I can carry to defend myself, if I decide to do so.  The only practical tool for that application is a hand gun.  So if you take handguns away, which is absolutely the goal of many GCAs, and has been done (mostly if not completely) in many places outside the US, you are saying "sure, you can have a gun, but you will not have the ability to use it to defend yourself".  Which is what most people who oppose gun control want.

To frame it in a way that may be more relevant to you, it would be like saying we're going to ban all bikes except for single-speed models.  You might say, well, I commute by bike, and I live in a hilly area, it's not practical for me to use a fixed gear bike for commuting.  And I might say "well I'm not banning all bikes, you can still keep your fixed gear bike for the BMX track or the bike path down by the lake." 

That is what GCAs are effectively doing, they're going to "allow me" to own a gun, but it's a gun that's not useful to me in most of the situations I want to use it, so it is effectively a ban without actually being one. 
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #195 on: March 04, 2016, 06:37:23 AM »

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.

This is why the gun control debate goes no where - it takes so much time to make up ground with people who don't know the current laws that it's impossible to make progress.

Current laws already require all firearms to be tracked from the manufacturer to the dealer, and from the dealer to the customer they sold it to. It's not really 'searchable' in the way you mean, but with two phone calls the police can find out who owns the gun they found at a crime scene.

That is the happy path. It depends upon the gun dealer keeping excellent, easily accessible records and being willing to share that information over the phone. It would be interesting to know how often such a simple phone transaction provides the information sought after. Even if they can get the information about gun XYZ over the phone, there is no way anyone can do comprehensive data mining to look for patterns that might reveal which dealers and individuals are connected with guns that seem to end up at crime scenes.
spent on gun studies. That would be possible with an electronic registry, but no, in an age in which our comprehensive medical history, credit history, voting history and almost every other piece of information is kept in electronic format, guns records haven't evolved any further than gutenberg.


Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #196 on: March 04, 2016, 06:43:17 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.

1.  My area is very safe, but anything can happen anywhere.  To me, this is like asking why I don't remove fire hazards in my house instead of buying an extinguisher.

2.  Yes.  Skeet, plinking in the woods, time at the range, etc.

3.  Our bedrooms are at the back of the 2nd floor, rare that the threat would be there, so my wife would care for our daughter in the back of the house, and I would guard the stairs in the front which gives me an open firing lane to ~80% of the main floor. 

4.  "I was in fear for my life [and that of my family if applicable] and I fired until I believed the threat was gone.  I am very upset right now and would not like to say anything else without my lawyer present."  I do not personally believe I would be arrested, even in liberal Cook County, for using a firearm against someone who illegally entered my home, but if that happened, so be it.  Given the layout of my house, there is no place to retreat to, so if someone was coming up the stairs, I believe I have a very compelling argument that I am in fear for my life.  Also, the guy across the street is a detective in our local PD, every reason to think he'd have my back unless I was doing something completely stupid, like shoot someone who was not inside my house.
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #197 on: March 04, 2016, 06:49:42 AM »
Again . . . now we're entering into discussion about the specifics and details of gun control implementation.  There's an awful lot to discuss in this area.  By no longer pretending that people interested in gun control want to ban all guns, a dialog can be started.

The problem with this "we're not looking to ban all guns" argument is that what people are doing with handgun bans/limitations is restricting what people can practically use as a defensive weapon.  Gun control advocates (GCAs) point out "you can still have a gun for hunting or target shooting" and whatnot, but what I really want is to have a weapon I can carry to defend myself, if I decide to do so.  The only practical tool for that application is a hand gun.  So if you take handguns away, which is absolutely the goal of many GCAs, and has been done (mostly if not completely) in many places outside the US, you are saying "sure, you can have a gun, but you will not have the ability to use it to defend yourself".  Which is what most people who oppose gun control want.

I think you may be painting too broad a picture regarding the aim of people who support gun control of one type or another. But let's say that is true. Then it works both ways. Gun advocates want to be able to take concealed hand guns everywhere - movie theaters, classrooms, etc. Here in Kansas, a paranoid nut accidentally shot a woman in a movie theater with his concealed handgun. In a nearby town, an idiot city council member had his concealed gun accidentally fall to the ground in the middle of a council meeting. Our Universities are being forced to allow students to take guns with them into classrooms. Guns are lethal weapons and by their very nature are intimidating. The fact that so many people now seem to be carrying concealed guns and that I could get hurt or even be killed if I happen to be around an idiot who screws up or someone with anger issues infringes on MY personal safety. You say that YOU want to feel safe. Well, I want to feel safe too and unfortunately the very thing that makes YOU FEEL SAFE makes ME FEEL UNSAFE. Am I crazy that I think that I have just as much right to feel safe as you do?

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #198 on: March 04, 2016, 06:55:21 AM »
Again . . . now we're entering into discussion about the specifics and details of gun control implementation.  There's an awful lot to discuss in this area.  By no longer pretending that people interested in gun control want to ban all guns, a dialog can be started.

The problem with this "we're not looking to ban all guns" argument is that what people are doing with handgun bans/limitations is restricting what people can practically use as a defensive weapon.  Gun control advocates (GCAs) point out "you can still have a gun for hunting or target shooting" and whatnot, but what I really want is to have a weapon I can carry to defend myself, if I decide to do so.  The only practical tool for that application is a hand gun.  So if you take handguns away, which is absolutely the goal of many GCAs, and has been done (mostly if not completely) in many places outside the US, you are saying "sure, you can have a gun, but you will not have the ability to use it to defend yourself".  Which is what most people who oppose gun control want.

I think you may be painting too broad a picture regarding the aim of people who support gun control of one type or another. But let's say that is true. Then it works both ways. Gun advocates want to be able to take concealed hand guns everywhere - movie theaters, classrooms, etc. Here in Kansas, a paranoid nut accidentally shot a woman in a movie theater with his concealed handgun. In a nearby town, an idiot city council member had his concealed gun accidentally fall to the ground in the middle of a council meeting. Our Universities are being forced to allow students to take guns with them into classrooms. Guns are lethal weapons and by their very nature are intimidating. The fact that so many people now seem to be carrying concealed guns and that I could get hurt or even be killed if I happen to be around an idiot who screws up or someone with anger issues infringes on MY personal safety. You say that YOU want to feel safe. Well, I want to feel safe too and unfortunately the very thing that makes YOU FEEL SAFE makes ME FEEL UNSAFE. Am I crazy that I think that I have just as much right to feel safe as you do?

Not to be an ass, but...yes.  I have an inherent right, as spelled out in the 2nd amendment, to bear arms.  You do not have any inherent right to not be around someone who is bearing arms.  No one has a right to "feel" this or not "feel" that. 
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3842
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #199 on: March 04, 2016, 07:05:24 AM »
Again . . . now we're entering into discussion about the specifics and details of gun control implementation.  There's an awful lot to discuss in this area.  By no longer pretending that people interested in gun control want to ban all guns, a dialog can be started.

The problem with this "we're not looking to ban all guns" argument is that what people are doing with handgun bans/limitations is restricting what people can practically use as a defensive weapon.  Gun control advocates (GCAs) point out "you can still have a gun for hunting or target shooting" and whatnot, but what I really want is to have a weapon I can carry to defend myself, if I decide to do so.  The only practical tool for that application is a hand gun.  So if you take handguns away, which is absolutely the goal of many GCAs, and has been done (mostly if not completely) in many places outside the US, you are saying "sure, you can have a gun, but you will not have the ability to use it to defend yourself".  Which is what most people who oppose gun control want.

I think you may be painting too broad a picture regarding the aim of people who support gun control of one type or another. But let's say that is true. Then it works both ways. Gun advocates want to be able to take concealed hand guns everywhere - movie theaters, classrooms, etc. Here in Kansas, a paranoid nut accidentally shot a woman in a movie theater with his concealed handgun. In a nearby town, an idiot city council member had his concealed gun accidentally fall to the ground in the middle of a council meeting. Our Universities are being forced to allow students to take guns with them into classrooms. Guns are lethal weapons and by their very nature are intimidating. The fact that so many people now seem to be carrying concealed guns and that I could get hurt or even be killed if I happen to be around an idiot who screws up or someone with anger issues infringes on MY personal safety. You say that YOU want to feel safe. Well, I want to feel safe too and unfortunately the very thing that makes YOU FEEL SAFE makes ME FEEL UNSAFE. Am I crazy that I think that I have just as much right to feel safe as you do?

Interesting - by your own description, we have a "paranoid nut" and an "idiot" causing the problem here. The common denominator is not the gun.

If anything, you should feel safer. Link:
Quote
Since 2007, the number of concealed handgun permits has soared from 4.6 million to over 12.8 million, and murder rates have fallen from 5.6 killings per 100,000 people to just 4.2, about a 25 percent drop, according to the report from the Crime Prevention Research Center.

However, since "guns are intimidating", you have the emotional reaction to feel unsafe, instead of the logical reaction to see what the actual outcome is.  That is a huge problem, IMO -- people want knee-jerk gun control, which is not fair or thought out properly. They want to "feel safe" without regard to fact.

Let's try this:
Quote
I think you may be painting too broad a picture regarding the aim of people who support car control of one type or another. But let's say that is true. Then it works both ways. Car advocates want to be able to take 4000lb killing machines everywhere - to the movie theaters, schools, etc. In Colorado, an elderly person accidentally ran over and killed a pedestrian in a WalMart parking lot. In Las Vegas, a woman ran down dozens of people on the sidewalk, killing one of them. Our Universities are being forced to allow students to drive their own cars to school.  Cars can be lethal weapons and by their very nature are intimidating. The fact that so many people now seem to be be driving cars that I could get hurt or even be killed if I happen to be around an idiot who screws up or someone with anger issues infringes on MY personal safety. You say that YOU want to feel safe. Well, I want to feel safe too and unfortunately the very thing that makes YOU FEEL SAFE makes ME FEEL UNSAFE. Am I crazy that I think that I have just as much right to feel safe as you do?
And let me remind you that driving is a privilege, not a right. ;)