Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 445875 times)

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3842
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1650 on: July 11, 2016, 12:43:12 PM »
It's crazy that something like that could happen at an event where all those law abiding Texans were there with their guns. After everything I've learned in this thread about how guns make us all safer, I'm really surprised. I would've thought that that BLM march would've been the safest place in the world. Maybe it's just that there weren't enough people carrying guns to make it safe. Maybe if 200 or 300 people had all been carrying AR-15's, then it would've been safe. :)

The only thing that I've learned is that we have a lot of cowardly people in our society (like this Democrat mayor) that would prefer we were all victims, whether that be vs. other citizens or the government. They willing advocate trading their protected rights for an illusion of safety. They also don't care about facts and figures, as we've demonstrated over and over that restricting access to firearms, both foreign and domestic, doesn't have any noticeable impact on gun homicides.

Keep beating that illogical drum though, I'm sure if you say it enough the more gullible elements of society will eventually believe you. I'm just sad that gun-control supporters trick our more naive voters into giving away their rights, and the rights of their children, for nothing.

To be fair...open carrying in general, especially rifles, is a terrible decision if your true goal is self defense. You become a target instead of having a tactical advantage.  I have yet to see anyone open carrying a rifle for any other reason than to attempt to get a reaction from people.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1651 on: July 11, 2016, 03:05:06 PM »
It's crazy that something like that could happen at an event where all those law abiding Texans were there with their guns. After everything I've learned in this thread about how guns make us all safer, I'm really surprised. I would've thought that that BLM march would've been the safest place in the world. Maybe it's just that there weren't enough people carrying guns to make it safe. Maybe if 200 or 300 people had all been carrying AR-15's, then it would've been safe. :)

The only thing that I've learned is that we have a lot of cowardly people in our society (like this Democrat mayor) that would prefer we were all victims, whether that be vs. other citizens or the government. They willing advocate trading their protected rights for an illusion of safety. They also don't care about facts and figures, as we've demonstrated over and over that restricting access to firearms, both foreign and domestic, doesn't have any noticeable impact on gun homicides.

Keep beating that illogical drum though, I'm sure if you say it enough the more gullible elements of society will eventually believe you. I'm just sad that gun-control supporters trick our more naive voters into giving away their rights, and the rights of their children, for nothing.

To be fair...open carrying in general, especially rifles, is a terrible decision if your true goal is self defense. You become a target instead of having a tactical advantage.  I have yet to see anyone open carrying a rifle for any other reason than to attempt to get a reaction from people.

The only reason I'm in favor of open carry for rifles is to use it as protection from stupid enforcement.  Example, if I am spotted with hunting rifle slung over my shoulder walking in the woods, or loading it in the car, or carrying it into Cabela's for service or something.  I don't need some overzealous officer freaking out in that type of situation, and Open Carry helps keep my rights from being violated.  I do think carrying an AR into Starbucks or something paints you as a giant assclown.
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1652 on: July 11, 2016, 04:02:33 PM »
Straw dog

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1653 on: July 11, 2016, 08:05:15 PM »
The only reason I'm in favor of open carry for rifles is to use it as protection from stupid enforcement.  Example, if I am spotted with hunting rifle slung over my shoulder walking in the woods, or loading it in the car, or carrying it into Cabela's for service or something.  I don't need some overzealous officer freaking out in that type of situation, and Open Carry helps keep my rights from being violated.  I do think carrying an AR into Starbucks or something paints you as a giant assclown.

Pretty much this. Thankfully the courts have largely recognized that rights should not be restricted in general just because some people are assclowns.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Shane

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 696
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1654 on: July 11, 2016, 08:14:20 PM »
In this NYTimes article, the mayor of Dallas says he thinks maybe Texas should rethink its gun laws which allow people to openly carry "long rifles", aka AR-15's, in public. LOL!

Quote
Mayor Mike Rawlings of Dallas suggested in an interview on Sunday that, in the wake of the attack, he supported tightening the state’s gun laws to restrict the carrying of rifles and shotguns in public.

“There should be some way to say I shouldn’t be bringing my shotgun to a Mavericks game or to a protest because something crazy should happen,” said Mr. Rawlings, a Democrat. “I just want to come back to common sense.”

The state’s open-carry culture, the mayor said, had imperiled people on the streets of Dallas. “This is the first time — but a very concrete time — that I think a law can hurt citizens, police and not protect them,” he said, adding that he was not anti-gun and that he owned a shotgun himself. “I think it’s amazing when you think that there is a gunfight going on, and you are supposed to be able to sort who the good guys are and who the bad guys are.”............

The Dallas police chief, David O. Brown, described to CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday the amount of confusion the armed protesters initially caused.

He said the event had attracted “20 or 30 people” who “showed up with AR-15 rifles slung across their shoulder.”

“They were wearing gas masks,” Mr. Brown said. “They were wearing bulletproof vests and camo fatigues, for effect, for whatever reason.”

When the shooting started, “they began to run,” he said. And because they ran in the middle of the shooting, he said, the police on the scene viewed them as suspects. “Someone is shooting at you from a perched position, and people are running with AR-15s and camo gear and gas masks and bulletproof vests, they are suspects, until we eliminate that.”

“Doesn’t make sense to us, but that’s their right in Texas,” he said. He did not say whether he supported restricting the carrying of rifles on the streets.

It's crazy that something like that could happen at an event where all those law abiding Texans were there with their guns. After everything I've learned in this thread about how guns make us all safer, I'm really surprised. I would've thought that that BLM march would've been the safest place in the world. Maybe it's just that there weren't enough people carrying guns to make it safe. Maybe if 200 or 300 people had all been carrying AR-15's, then it would've been safe. :)

Funny how out of all those people carrying concealed weapons, and all those people open carrying assault rifles that day: none of them shot anybody. It was only one unhinged attacker who had passed all background checks, was well-trained with his weapon, and was not a member of a majority demographic.  So tell me how concealed carrying made this situation more dangerous? Or do you just "feel" it would have been better if those people you are afraid of who didn't shoot anyone also... didn't shoot anyone....?

Seems to me that the police did a fine job of not shooting innocent people in a chaotic situation. In my district, weapons are not allowed at 'public gatherings', etc. So I can't 'bring my shotgun to the Maverick's game'.  So amending the law in Texas with similar wording would eliminate this concern without unduly burdening the rights of the population.  Of course, that would be a compromise; something few people in this discussion are willing to do.

Who said that concealed carrying made the situation more dangerous?

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1655 on: July 11, 2016, 09:34:50 PM »
Who said that concealed carrying made the situation more dangerous?

Sorry. I missed where anyone else in the thread had said anything about open carrying. So I assumed when you said "All I've learned in this thread about guns making people safer." I assumed you meant, in the discussion of this thread, about firearms in the home, or carried concealed. I'm sorry if that was incorrect.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

BoonDogle

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 100
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1656 on: July 14, 2016, 01:30:17 PM »
I have a handgun in the house and a shotgun.  The handgun is for protection, while the shotgun is for hunting.  I have no problem with other people having guns and am appalled that other people would try to take mine from me if they had their way.  Responses to the OP's questions below:

1. I don't feel like I am in a dangerous area but I do live in the country.  If I was in a situation where someone was threatening my family or trying to break in, a call to the cops would be of little value as they would be 15 to 20 minutes getting to my house.  I do not feel constantly on edge about someone breaking in, but it is rather peace of mind knowing that if there was ever a dangerous situation, I would have a way to protect my family.

2. I do not regularly practice but have practiced enough to be able handle any firearm.  My wife has had to practice since she has very little experience with guns.  Since I am out of town regularly, she needs to know how to also protect our home and kids.

3. Don't think we have had any discussions related to how to stay out of the way of the guns.  The shooter has to take responsibility for knowing who is or could be in the path of the bullet and which direction he/she can and cannot shoot.  If a situation arises which requires me to shoot, I would get the kids and family out of harms way before pulling the trigger.

4. I would only fire at someone threatening to harm me or my family with deadly force or breaking into my home.  I would also never pull the trigger unless I could clearly see or already knew 100% who it was that I was firing at.  I believe those both qualify as self defense so I would cooperative with the law enforcement when they finally arrive and let them know what happened.

I have lived where I live without a handgun for several years and have had one for a while now.  I understand that the likelihood that I would need to use a gun is remote but I also believe that guns are a deterrent for anyone that might contemplate breaking into a home (knowing that it could cost them their life).  I like having the ability to be able to protect my family if needed without having to rely on the cops.  More than likely, if I waited on the cops, all they would be able to do was count the bodies after the fact.  I cannot understand why anyone would have a problem with that.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1657 on: July 15, 2016, 01:06:52 PM »
I have a handgun in the house and a shotgun.  The handgun is for protection, while the shotgun is for hunting.  I have no problem with other people having guns and am appalled that other people would try to take mine from me if they had their way.  Responses to the OP's questions below:

1. I don't feel like I am in a dangerous area but I do live in the country.  If I was in a situation where someone was threatening my family or trying to break in, a call to the cops would be of little value as they would be 15 to 20 minutes getting to my house.  I do not feel constantly on edge about someone breaking in, but it is rather peace of mind knowing that if there was ever a dangerous situation, I would have a way to protect my family.

2. I do not regularly practice but have practiced enough to be able handle any firearm.  My wife has had to practice since she has very little experience with guns.  Since I am out of town regularly, she needs to know how to also protect our home and kids.

3. Don't think we have had any discussions related to how to stay out of the way of the guns.  The shooter has to take responsibility for knowing who is or could be in the path of the bullet and which direction he/she can and cannot shoot.  If a situation arises which requires me to shoot, I would get the kids and family out of harms way before pulling the trigger.

4. I would only fire at someone threatening to harm me or my family with deadly force or breaking into my home.  I would also never pull the trigger unless I could clearly see or already knew 100% who it was that I was firing at.  I believe those both qualify as self defense so I would cooperative with the law enforcement when they finally arrive and let them know what happened.

I have lived where I live without a handgun for several years and have had one for a while now.  I understand that the likelihood that I would need to use a gun is remote but I also believe that guns are a deterrent for anyone that might contemplate breaking into a home (knowing that it could cost them their life).  I like having the ability to be able to protect my family if needed without having to rely on the cops.  More than likely, if I waited on the cops, all they would be able to do was count the bodies after the fact.  I cannot understand why anyone would have a problem with that.

Neither do I. In fact, I suspect very few people, Liberals included, have much of any problem with the guns you have.

yuka

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 358
  • Location: East coast for now
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1658 on: July 15, 2016, 02:43:52 PM »
I have a handgun in the house and a shotgun.  The handgun is for protection, while the shotgun is for hunting.  I have no problem with other people having guns and am appalled that other people would try to take mine from me if they had their way.  Responses to the OP's questions below:

1. I don't feel like I am in a dangerous area but I do live in the country.  If I was in a situation where someone was threatening my family or trying to break in, a call to the cops would be of little value as they would be 15 to 20 minutes getting to my house.  I do not feel constantly on edge about someone breaking in, but it is rather peace of mind knowing that if there was ever a dangerous situation, I would have a way to protect my family.

2. I do not regularly practice but have practiced enough to be able handle any firearm.  My wife has had to practice since she has very little experience with guns.  Since I am out of town regularly, she needs to know how to also protect our home and kids.

3. Don't think we have had any discussions related to how to stay out of the way of the guns.  The shooter has to take responsibility for knowing who is or could be in the path of the bullet and which direction he/she can and cannot shoot.  If a situation arises which requires me to shoot, I would get the kids and family out of harms way before pulling the trigger.

4. I would only fire at someone threatening to harm me or my family with deadly force or breaking into my home.  I would also never pull the trigger unless I could clearly see or already knew 100% who it was that I was firing at.  I believe those both qualify as self defense so I would cooperative with the law enforcement when they finally arrive and let them know what happened.

I have lived where I live without a handgun for several years and have had one for a while now.  I understand that the likelihood that I would need to use a gun is remote but I also believe that guns are a deterrent for anyone that might contemplate breaking into a home (knowing that it could cost them their life).  I like having the ability to be able to protect my family if needed without having to rely on the cops.  More than likely, if I waited on the cops, all they would be able to do was count the bodies after the fact.  I cannot understand why anyone would have a problem with that.

Neither do I. In fact, I suspect very few people, Liberals included, have much of any problem with the guns you have.

In my opinion, there are two types of gun-grabbing Democrats, and one is mostly opposed to handguns. Handguns are used in the overwhelming (like, orders of magnitude overwhelming) majority of crimes involving guns, so people who focus on the societal effects are likely to want these gone. These are actually the people I think are worth debating.

The second type, of course, are the ones who are outraged at the state of gun control. They demand that we pass laws for universal background checks and tight controls on assault rifles, despite the fact that these laws already exist and that fewer than five deaths have been connected to legal automatic weapons in the last 80 years. These people are the irrational ones. Or at least, they're so negligently uninformed that they come off that way. The best you can hope to do with this type is to arrange a meeting between them and reality and hope they show up.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1660 on: July 15, 2016, 06:49:43 PM »
I was amused.

http://www.roadkilltshirts.com/When-You-Come-For-My-Guns-You-Better-Bring-Yours-T-Shirt-P14148.aspx

Actually reminds me of a great day at the range. You get to walk around and see what everyone else is shooting, swap weapons and try out stuff you've maybe never even heard of before.  The shooting community is so incredibly welcoming, in my experience.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

robartsd

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1008
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1661 on: July 18, 2016, 12:39:02 PM »
The second type, of course, are the ones who are outraged at the state of gun control. They demand that we pass laws for universal background checks and tight controls on assault rifles, despite the fact that these laws already exist and that fewer than five deaths have been connected to legal automatic weapons in the last 80 years. These people are the irrational ones. Or at least, they're so negligently uninformed that they come off that way. The best you can hope to do with this type is to arrange a meeting between them and reality and hope they show up.
Or they're part of a conspiracy to disarm the citizens so that there is no meaningful resistance to their plan for a tyrannical government.

Rural

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4212
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1662 on: July 18, 2016, 01:17:09 PM »
Wild pig in the woods below our house. Have found tracks, then heard it at midnight not more than 50 feet from the front porch. This is a serious danger, and so we've loaded the big rifle and the 12-gauge.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1663 on: July 18, 2016, 02:26:28 PM »
The second type, of course, are the ones who are outraged at the state of gun control. They demand that we pass laws for universal background checks and tight controls on assault rifles, despite the fact that these laws already exist and that fewer than five deaths have been connected to legal automatic weapons in the last 80 years. These people are the irrational ones. Or at least, they're so negligently uninformed that they come off that way. The best you can hope to do with this type is to arrange a meeting between them and reality and hope they show up.

Okay, I'm relatively ignorant on the gun side so excuse any errors or misconceptions on my part. Is perhaps the fact that 'fewer than five deaths have been connected to legal automatic weapons in the last 80 years' explainable because they require an extensive background check and a permit from the ATF?

yuka

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 358
  • Location: East coast for now
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1664 on: July 18, 2016, 06:25:59 PM »
The second type, of course, are the ones who are outraged at the state of gun control. They demand that we pass laws for universal background checks and tight controls on assault rifles, despite the fact that these laws already exist and that fewer than five deaths have been connected to legal automatic weapons in the last 80 years. These people are the irrational ones. Or at least, they're so negligently uninformed that they come off that way. The best you can hope to do with this type is to arrange a meeting between them and reality and hope they show up.

Okay, I'm relatively ignorant on the gun side so excuse any errors or misconceptions on my part. Is perhaps the fact that 'fewer than five deaths have been connected to legal automatic weapons in the last 80 years' explainable because they require an extensive background check and a permit from the ATF?

It's my understanding that background checks were not required before Black Friday, just some fancy legal footwork (and I don't know how fancy.) I'm not sure that the ATF permit is to blame either. Rather, I think it's likely a function of the price of an NFA weapon that makes them terrible tools for the job.

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1242
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1665 on: July 18, 2016, 07:04:10 PM »
Didn't read the thread, so apologies for bringing up something that may have already been discussed, but I trust my dog 1000% more than I trust the outcome of owning a gun when it comes to efficacy in defending my property and family. Plus accidental serious injury/death is far less likely. And I get tons of kisses and unconditional love to boot. Win/win/win!

Not particularly worried about needing to defend myself at the mall and/or OK Corral, so if I ever do buy a gun, it will be purely for target shooting/zombie apocalypse purposes.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3842
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1666 on: July 18, 2016, 07:08:43 PM »
Didn't read the thread, so apologies for bringing up something that may have already been discussed, but I trust my dog 1000% more than I trust the outcome of owning a gun when it comes to efficacy in defending my property and family. Plus accidental serious injury/death is far less likely. And I get tons of kisses and unconditional love to boot. Win/win/win!

Not particularly worried about needing to defend myself at the mall and/or OK Corral, so if I ever do buy a gun, it will be purely for target shooting/zombie apocalypse purposes.

In the spirit of numbers, I looked up how many dog bites there are annually and I was pretty surprised at how many people died!  It's a very small number in the big picture, but still surprising to me.

Dog bite losses exceed $1 billion per year. In 2015, 35 Americans were killed by dogs, down from 42 the prior year. Each year, more than 350,000 dog bite victims are seen in emergency rooms, and approximately 850,000 victims receive medical attention. Data that the CDC collected in the USA between 2001 and 2003 indicated there were 4.5 million dog bite victims per year, but that figure appears to be rising.

Despite the number of victims, only 15,000 to 16,000 of them per year receive money from homeowners insurance companies and renters insurance companies. This means that out of the 850,000 who get medical attention, only two victims per 100 receive compensation. Although insurers pay over $350 million to victims, the nationwide, average insurance payment for a dog bite case is only $29,752. The payouts have increased by 55.3 percent in the past decade.

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1242
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1667 on: July 18, 2016, 07:12:21 PM »
Sure, but I would be willing to wager the vast majority of those scenarios involved poorly trained dogs. Just like with guns, you shouldn't own a dog if you're not willing to do so responsibly.

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1242
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1668 on: July 18, 2016, 07:19:40 PM »
Good thing I like my dogs a wee bit bigger than that!

She does wear a pink collar though ;)

Rural

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4212
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1669 on: July 18, 2016, 07:27:08 PM »
Didn't read the thread, so apologies for bringing up something that may have already been discussed, but I trust my dog 1000% more than I trust the outcome of owning a gun when it comes to efficacy in defending my property and family. Plus accidental serious injury/death is far less likely. And I get tons of kisses and unconditional love to boot. Win/win/win!

Not particularly worried about needing to defend myself at the mall and/or OK Corral, so if I ever do buy a gun, it will be purely for target shooting/zombie apocalypse purposes.
One of these things will protect me better than the other - the dog or the thing in the pink  case (yes pink so... girly!).  Guess which one ;-)?


If our dogs get loose with that boar, it'll kill them both, and they're roughly 100 times the size of the barkinator. Of course, unless you have a girly pink .45 with pink hollow points in that totally adorable case, it's not likely to help either. I'm not so sure about our 12 gauge, either.


Wild boar are a good reason for an AK. But we don't have one. Haven't found the boar yet, either. Have warned the neighbors, so there's that.


It ain't the zombie apocalypse, but I do have a real live danger calling for very big guns right outside my door just now. It happens, y'all.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3842
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1670 on: July 18, 2016, 07:36:08 PM »
Didn't read the thread, so apologies for bringing up something that may have already been discussed, but I trust my dog 1000% more than I trust the outcome of owning a gun when it comes to efficacy in defending my property and family. Plus accidental serious injury/death is far less likely. And I get tons of kisses and unconditional love to boot. Win/win/win!

Not particularly worried about needing to defend myself at the mall and/or OK Corral, so if I ever do buy a gun, it will be purely for target shooting/zombie apocalypse purposes.
One of these things will protect me better than the other - the dog or the thing in the pink  case (yes pink so... girly!).  Guess which one ;-)?


If our dogs get loose with that boar, it'll kill them both, and they're roughly 100 times the size of the barkinator. Of course, unless you have a girly pink .45 with pink hollow points in that totally adorable case, it's not likely to help either. I'm not so sure about our 12 gauge, either.


Wild boar are a good reason for an AK. But we don't have one. Haven't found the boar yet, either. Have warned the neighbors, so there's that.


It ain't the zombie apocalypse, but I do have a real live danger calling for very big guns right outside my door just now. It happens, y'all.
Well it's a .357 Magnum with 158 grain semi jacked hollow points so might do the trick ;-).  Of course The Barkinator would probably irrate it to death so there's that.

Maybe....wild boar are mean, though. And tough.

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1242
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1671 on: July 18, 2016, 07:41:54 PM »
Didn't read the thread, so apologies for bringing up something that may have already been discussed, but I trust my dog 1000% more than I trust the outcome of owning a gun when it comes to efficacy in defending my property and family. Plus accidental serious injury/death is far less likely. And I get tons of kisses and unconditional love to boot. Win/win/win!

Not particularly worried about needing to defend myself at the mall and/or OK Corral, so if I ever do buy a gun, it will be purely for target shooting/zombie apocalypse purposes.
One of these things will protect me better than the other - the dog or the thing in the pink  case (yes pink so... girly!).  Guess which one ;-)?


If our dogs get loose with that boar, it'll kill them both, and they're roughly 100 times the size of the barkinator. Of course, unless you have a girly pink .45 with pink hollow points in that totally adorable case, it's not likely to help either. I'm not so sure about our 12 gauge, either.


Wild boar are a good reason for an AK. But we don't have one. Haven't found the boar yet, either. Have warned the neighbors, so there's that.


It ain't the zombie apocalypse, but I do have a real live danger calling for very big guns right outside my door just now. It happens, y'all.

Oh yeah, it actually makes much more sense to me for people living in rural environments to own guns for the reasons you mention. I suppose I could also see an argument if you live alone in a sketchy urban area. Much less accident potential, at the least. Not sure how I feel about a family living in a sketchy area. I think I would still favor a (large) dog in that scenario. Families in suburbs are just silly if they think they need a gun for protection. I mean, I don't personally judge them, any more than I judge market timers or gold hoarders. But just like those people, their actions are based more on fear than logic. Now if you just think guns are cool, enjoy target shooting or hunting, keep them safely locked up separately from the ammo, etc., then more power to you.

Cyaphas

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 500
  • Age: 34
  • Location: DFW, TX
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1672 on: July 18, 2016, 08:04:42 PM »

Oh yeah, it actually makes much more sense to me for people living in rural environments to own guns for the reasons you mention. I suppose I could also see an argument if you live alone in a sketchy urban area. Much less accident potential, at the least. Not sure how I feel about a family living in a sketchy area. I think I would still favor a (large) dog in that scenario. Families in suburbs are just silly if they think they need a gun for protection. I mean, I don't personally judge them, any more than I judge market timers or gold hoarders. But just like those people, their actions are based more on fear than logic. Now if you just think guns are cool, enjoy target shooting or hunting, keep them safely locked up separately from the ammo, etc., then more power to you.

Most basic home defense guns cost a hell of a lot less than a large dog. They also last a lot longer. There is the defecating, training and "what to do with them on vacations" things too.
“For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”
-Nelson Mandela

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

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1242
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1673 on: July 18, 2016, 08:21:08 PM »

Oh yeah, it actually makes much more sense to me for people living in rural environments to own guns for the reasons you mention. I suppose I could also see an argument if you live alone in a sketchy urban area. Much less accident potential, at the least. Not sure how I feel about a family living in a sketchy area. I think I would still favor a (large) dog in that scenario. Families in suburbs are just silly if they think they need a gun for protection. I mean, I don't personally judge them, any more than I judge market timers or gold hoarders. But just like those people, their actions are based more on fear than logic. Now if you just think guns are cool, enjoy target shooting or hunting, keep them safely locked up separately from the ammo, etc., then more power to you.

Most basic home defense guns cost a hell of a lot less than a large dog. They also last a lot longer. There is the defecating, training and "what to do with them on vacations" things too.

I know owning a dog is a lifestyle choice and not for everyone. All I'm saying is that if you have a weapon you're keeping for defending your home and you live in a low to average crime area, statistics tell us it is quite a bit more likely that the weapon will kill someone by accident than be needed for its intended purpose, even if you act as responsibly as you can with it. Even in a high crime area, there are many logical reasons owning a gun may or may not be wise. I'm sure in 35 pages this point has probably come up a lot so I won't belabor it.

I have never owned a gun, so correct me if I'm wrong, but if your guns and ammo are safely stored (which I am told means weapons unloaded, and locked away separately from the ammo), they will essentially be useless for home defense, at least with regards to a home invasion in the middle of the night, which seems to be most people's object of paranoia. Give me a smelly, expensive, defecating dog any day if that's an area of concern.


Cyaphas

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 500
  • Age: 34
  • Location: DFW, TX
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1674 on: July 18, 2016, 08:43:22 PM »

I have never owned a gun, so correct me if I'm wrong, but if your guns and ammo are safely stored (which I am told means weapons unloaded, and locked away separately from the ammo), they will essentially be useless for home defense, at least with regards to a home invasion in the middle of the night, which seems to be most people's object of paranoia. Give me a smelly, expensive, defecating dog any day if that's an area of concern.

You have a strange definition of 'safely stored.' It'd take me roughly 4-5 seconds to go from sleeping to my 870 express with one in the chamber. It also has a very bright flashlight attached to the end of it. I suppose you could mount one to your dog, though I don't expect that to be very practical.
“For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”
-Nelson Mandela

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

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1242
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1675 on: July 18, 2016, 09:06:15 PM »

I have never owned a gun, so correct me if I'm wrong, but if your guns and ammo are safely stored (which I am told means weapons unloaded, and locked away separately from the ammo), they will essentially be useless for home defense, at least with regards to a home invasion in the middle of the night, which seems to be most people's object of paranoia. Give me a smelly, expensive, defecating dog any day if that's an area of concern.

You have a strange definition of 'safely stored.' It'd take me roughly 4-5 seconds to go from sleeping to my 870 express with one in the chamber. It also has a very bright flashlight attached to the end of it. I suppose you could mount one to your dog, though I don't expect that to be very practical.

My "strange definition" assumes that I have or could possibly have kids in the house, in which case I would personally never make it remotely possible for those kids to access either the guns or the ammunition without supervision. I would be less concerned in an adult-only living situation, although I still prefer my pup personally. Maybe that's overly paranoid, but I trust the statistics that tell me accidents are far more likely than home invasions, which makes that a more reasonable target of paranoia. Besides, my dog makes it much less likely that someone would even try to invade my home in the first place than a gun they are unlikely to know about.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2016, 09:16:45 PM by Lagom »

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1242
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1676 on: July 18, 2016, 09:21:49 PM »
I'm a single kidless female living and travelling alone. If I had kids I would store my firearms differently than I do now. I'm also former military  and LEO so have been carrying/owning various firearms for work or privatelt for more than 25 years now.

Yeah your situation makes more sense, as do those who legitimately worry about aggressive wild animals. Owning guns for sport also makes sense. I think target shooting is pretty fun myself, although not fun enough to blow a bunch of money on a gun and/or range fees, but that's just a matter of hobby prioritization. I primarily question suburban families who make this choice (that is, keeping a loaded and/or quickly accessible weapon solely for home defense), when a dog will do as much or more for them with a lot less risk of tragedy.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2016, 09:23:24 PM by Lagom »

Tom Bri

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 550
  • Location: Small Town, Flyover Country
  • More just cheap, than Mustachian
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1677 on: July 18, 2016, 09:28:55 PM »

I have never owned a gun, so correct me if I'm wrong, but if your guns and ammo are safely stored (which I am told means weapons unloaded, and locked away separately from the ammo), they will essentially be useless for home defense, at least with regards to a home invasion in the middle of the night, which seems to be most people's object of paranoia. Give me a smelly, expensive, defecating dog any day if that's an area of concern.

You have a strange definition of 'safely stored.' It'd take me roughly 4-5 seconds to go from sleeping to my 870 express with one in the chamber. It also has a very bright flashlight attached to the end of it. I suppose you could mount one to your dog, though I don't expect that to be very practical.

My "strange definition" assumes that I have or could possibly have kids in the house, in which case I would personally never make it remotely possible for those kids to access either the guns or the ammunition without supervision. I would be less concerned in an adult-only living situation, although I still prefer my pup personally. Maybe that's overly paranoid, but I trust the statistics that tell me accidents are far more likely than home invasions, which makes that a more reasonable target of paranoia. Besides, my dog makes it much less likely that someone would even try to invade my home in the first place than a gun they are unlikely to know about.

Home invasions actually a lot more common than gun accidents. This article from NPR claims 2 million/year.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88074698

Owning a gun is one kind of risk. Not owning one is a different risk. It's for the individual to weigh the balance personally. Other than as a warning system, I don't view a dog as much of an aid. A pack of dogs, maybe, but not one dog.

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1242
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1678 on: July 18, 2016, 09:36:28 PM »

I have never owned a gun, so correct me if I'm wrong, but if your guns and ammo are safely stored (which I am told means weapons unloaded, and locked away separately from the ammo), they will essentially be useless for home defense, at least with regards to a home invasion in the middle of the night, which seems to be most people's object of paranoia. Give me a smelly, expensive, defecating dog any day if that's an area of concern.

You have a strange definition of 'safely stored.' It'd take me roughly 4-5 seconds to go from sleeping to my 870 express with one in the chamber. It also has a very bright flashlight attached to the end of it. I suppose you could mount one to your dog, though I don't expect that to be very practical.

My "strange definition" assumes that I have or could possibly have kids in the house, in which case I would personally never make it remotely possible for those kids to access either the guns or the ammunition without supervision. I would be less concerned in an adult-only living situation, although I still prefer my pup personally. Maybe that's overly paranoid, but I trust the statistics that tell me accidents are far more likely than home invasions, which makes that a more reasonable target of paranoia. Besides, my dog makes it much less likely that someone would even try to invade my home in the first place than a gun they are unlikely to know about.

Home invasions actually a lot more common than gun accidents. This article from NPR claims 2 million/year.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88074698

Owning a gun is one kind of risk. Not owning one is a different risk. It's for the individual to weigh the balance personally. Other than as a warning system, I don't view a dog as much of an aid. A pack of dogs, maybe, but not one dog.

I admit I was careless with how I worded that, but to speak to my broader point, I would be more interested in seeing the number of middle class suburban home invasions that occur while the occupants are at home and that result in violence to said occupants that might have been prevented by a gun. The reason even a single dog is a great deterrent is not because they will fight off a determined psychopath (they won't, although a gun might not either), but rather because they make breaking into a home far more dangerous and complicated. If I'm a burglar, unless I know there is something in that specific home worth stealing more than what any of the neighbors without dogs have, why would I target the house with a dog? Now if he knew I had a gun and was willing to use it, he also would probably hesitate, but that's not something he would find out until he was already in the house (assuming I would have woken up in time to prepare for him).

Edit -
To wit, this quote from the article: "Long says he didn't care much about alarms or locks or police patrols. He says he was no cat burglar. He just looked for open doors and windows." Dogs are not mentioned, but the implication clearly is that he looked for the least complicated houses to rob.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2016, 09:42:55 PM by Lagom »

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Age: 35
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1679 on: July 18, 2016, 11:15:35 PM »

I have never owned a gun, so correct me if I'm wrong, but if your guns and ammo are safely stored (which I am told means weapons unloaded, and locked away separately from the ammo), they will essentially be useless for home defense, at least with regards to a home invasion in the middle of the night, which seems to be most people's object of paranoia. Give me a smelly, expensive, defecating dog any day if that's an area of concern.

You have a strange definition of 'safely stored.' It'd take me roughly 4-5 seconds to go from sleeping to my 870 express with one in the chamber. It also has a very bright flashlight attached to the end of it. I suppose you could mount one to your dog, though I don't expect that to be very practical.

My "strange definition" assumes that I have or could possibly have kids in the house, in which case I would personally never make it remotely possible for those kids to access either the guns or the ammunition without supervision. I would be less concerned in an adult-only living situation, although I still prefer my pup personally. Maybe that's overly paranoid, but I trust the statistics that tell me accidents are far more likely than home invasions, which makes that a more reasonable target of paranoia. Besides, my dog makes it much less likely that someone would even try to invade my home in the first place than a gun they are unlikely to know about.

About the same number of children are killed every year from accidental gun deaths as there are fatalities from lightning strikes. When your odds are similar to being struck by lightning, I'd say your odds are pretty darn good, even if you apply those deaths across a smaller number of households that own firearms. Can we do better? Of course, and that's where things like the NRA can step in and provide communities training and guidance on the proper use and storage of firearms.

I learned at a young age, and I still handle weapons today in my career, but every gun owner that I've known are very serious about safety around children. Part of that is teaching your children about firearms and that falls on parents and the community, even if the parents personally abhor firearms. You have no idea what the future could hold for them, and you're doing your children a disservice (not you specifically), and possibly setting them up for failure by failing to teach them proper firearms safety.

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1242
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1680 on: July 19, 2016, 12:11:52 AM »

I have never owned a gun, so correct me if I'm wrong, but if your guns and ammo are safely stored (which I am told means weapons unloaded, and locked away separately from the ammo), they will essentially be useless for home defense, at least with regards to a home invasion in the middle of the night, which seems to be most people's object of paranoia. Give me a smelly, expensive, defecating dog any day if that's an area of concern.

You have a strange definition of 'safely stored.' It'd take me roughly 4-5 seconds to go from sleeping to my 870 express with one in the chamber. It also has a very bright flashlight attached to the end of it. I suppose you could mount one to your dog, though I don't expect that to be very practical.

My "strange definition" assumes that I have or could possibly have kids in the house, in which case I would personally never make it remotely possible for those kids to access either the guns or the ammunition without supervision. I would be less concerned in an adult-only living situation, although I still prefer my pup personally. Maybe that's overly paranoid, but I trust the statistics that tell me accidents are far more likely than home invasions, which makes that a more reasonable target of paranoia. Besides, my dog makes it much less likely that someone would even try to invade my home in the first place than a gun they are unlikely to know about.

About the same number of children are killed every year from accidental gun deaths as there are fatalities from lightning strikes. When your odds are similar to being struck by lightning, I'd say your odds are pretty darn good, even if you apply those deaths across a smaller number of households that own firearms. Can we do better? Of course, and that's where things like the NRA can step in and provide communities training and guidance on the proper use and storage of firearms.

I learned at a young age, and I still handle weapons today in my career, but every gun owner that I've known are very serious about safety around children. Part of that is teaching your children about firearms and that falls on parents and the community, even if the parents personally abhor firearms. You have no idea what the future could hold for them, and you're doing your children a disservice (not you specifically), and possibly setting them up for failure by failing to teach them proper firearms safety.

Fine. All I'm saying is that until I see conclusive evidence that having guns in my house notably improves the life expectancy of my family, I see no reason to take that risk. And let's be real here, even if you could somehow "prove" that to be the case, the impact on large scale basis would still be negligible versus not owning a gun, otherwise this wouldn't be a debate. In other words, the anecdotal experiences of those who have not had tragedy strike, or even who have successfully fended off murderous home invaders (a statistically insignificant bunch), does not rationally "prove" that having a gun in the home is anything more than an emotional decision based on specific fears. This is just like people who dollar cost average windfalls, or who buy houses in mathematically inferior situations (something I am likely to do!). Whether or not it's optimal, it makes you feel better, and that's fair enough.

For me, I see no reason to own a gun for home defense purposes because the emotional reward doesn't provide enough to balance the risk, even if I am as serious as anyone has ever been about responsible ownership. What I do know is that my dog drastically reduces the possibility of a home invasion in general, and thus I'm far less likely to need a gun in the first place. Regardless, I don't disrespect those who view it differently. I just think that they should acknowledge that their decision is at least partially an emotional one.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1681 on: July 19, 2016, 05:46:09 AM »

I have never owned a gun, so correct me if I'm wrong, but if your guns and ammo are safely stored (which I am told means weapons unloaded, and locked away separately from the ammo), they will essentially be useless for home defense, at least with regards to a home invasion in the middle of the night, which seems to be most people's object of paranoia. Give me a smelly, expensive, defecating dog any day if that's an area of concern.

You have a strange definition of 'safely stored.' It'd take me roughly 4-5 seconds to go from sleeping to my 870 express with one in the chamber. It also has a very bright flashlight attached to the end of it. I suppose you could mount one to your dog, though I don't expect that to be very practical.

My "strange definition" assumes that I have or could possibly have kids in the house, in which case I would personally never make it remotely possible for those kids to access either the guns or the ammunition without supervision. I would be less concerned in an adult-only living situation, although I still prefer my pup personally. Maybe that's overly paranoid, but I trust the statistics that tell me accidents are far more likely than home invasions, which makes that a more reasonable target of paranoia. Besides, my dog makes it much less likely that someone would even try to invade my home in the first place than a gun they are unlikely to know about.

About the same number of children are killed every year from accidental gun deaths as there are fatalities from lightning strikes. When your odds are similar to being struck by lightning, I'd say your odds are pretty darn good, even if you apply those deaths across a smaller number of households that own firearms. Can we do better? Of course, and that's where things like the NRA can step in and provide communities training and guidance on the proper use and storage of firearms.

I learned at a young age, and I still handle weapons today in my career, but every gun owner that I've known are very serious about safety around children. Part of that is teaching your children about firearms and that falls on parents and the community, even if the parents personally abhor firearms. You have no idea what the future could hold for them, and you're doing your children a disservice (not you specifically), and possibly setting them up for failure by failing to teach them proper firearms safety.

Fine. All I'm saying is that until I see conclusive evidence that having guns in my house notably improves the life expectancy of my family, I see no reason to take that risk. And let's be real here, even if you could somehow "prove" that to be the case, the impact on large scale basis would still be negligible versus not owning a gun, otherwise this wouldn't be a debate. In other words, the anecdotal experiences of those who have not had tragedy strike, or even who have successfully fended off murderous home invaders (a statistically insignificant bunch), does not rationally "prove" that having a gun in the home is anything more than an emotional decision based on specific fears. This is just like people who dollar cost average windfalls, or who buy houses in mathematically inferior situations (something I am likely to do!). Whether or not it's optimal, it makes you feel better, and that's fair enough.

For me, I see no reason to own a gun for home defense purposes because the emotional reward doesn't provide enough to balance the risk, even if I am as serious as anyone has ever been about responsible ownership. What I do know is that my dog drastically reduces the possibility of a home invasion in general, and thus I'm far less likely to need a gun in the first place. Regardless, I don't disrespect those who view it differently. I just think that they should acknowledge that their decision is at least partially an emotional one.

This kind of bothers me. First of all, neither I nor other pro-gun posters here are looking to convince you to get a gun. In my opinion, someone who is leery of the idea in the first place is not a good candidate because they won't have the confidence necessary to be a safe and (in the rare event the gun is needed) effective gun owner.

Second of all, (and I am also taking into consideration the statement "I would be more interested in seeing the number of middle class suburban home invasions that occur while the occupants are at home and that result in violence to said occupants that might have been prevented by a gun") the burden of evidence you are requesting is difficult or impossible to obtain. I could look at an incident and say "yep, a gun would have helped." Another person could look at the same incident and say "no, a gun wouldn't have helped." A third person could look t the same and say "a gun would have made this worse."

dycker1978

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 718
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1682 on: July 19, 2016, 07:46:31 AM »
All I have to say is that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.  The USA is doing the same thing over and over again.  Are you happy with the results?

If the answer is no, change will need to happen.  I am not saying "take the guns away".  That is not the solution here.  I am not sure what the solution is, and I guess if everyone is ok with the price of freedom being 35000 lives every year, OK. 

If everyone is happy, then carry on, but I don't think that is the case, hence this forum. 

Just to make sure that my point is not taken out of context, I think the same conversation needs to happen with vehicles, with eating out(risk of obesity etc), and many of the other harmful activities that north Americans enjoy.



Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Age: 35
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1683 on: July 19, 2016, 08:46:43 AM »
All I have to say is that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.  The USA is doing the same thing over and over again.  Are you happy with the results?

If the answer is no, change will need to happen.  I am not saying "take the guns away".  That is not the solution here.  I am not sure what the solution is, and I guess if everyone is ok with the price of freedom being 35000 lives every year, OK. 

If everyone is happy, then carry on, but I don't think that is the case, hence this forum. 

Just to make sure that my point is not taken out of context, I think the same conversation needs to happen with vehicles, with eating out(risk of obesity etc), and many of the other harmful activities that north Americans enjoy.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Gun homicides have been dropping for decades in the US without changes to our gun laws. I'm very happy with that result, especially considering that gun control laws in other post-industrialized countries haven't resulted in a noticeable increased decline in gun violence.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2016, 09:50:34 AM by Yaeger »

dycker1978

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 718
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1684 on: July 19, 2016, 09:55:49 AM »
All I have to say is that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.  The USA is doing the same thing over and over again.  Are you happy with the results?

If the answer is no, change will need to happen.  I am not saying "take the guns away".  That is not the solution here.  I am not sure what the solution is, and I guess if everyone is ok with the price of freedom being 35000 lives every year, OK. 

If everyone is happy, then carry on, but I don't think that is the case, hence this forum. 

Just to make sure that my point is not taken out of context, I think the same conversation needs to happen with vehicles, with eating out(risk of obesity etc), and many of the other harmful activities that north Americans enjoy.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Gun homicides have been dropping for decades in the US without changes to our gun laws. I'm very happy with that result, especially considering that gun control laws in other post-industrialized countries haven't resulted in a noticeable increased decline in gun violence.

If you are ok with 35000 people killed a year, then so be it.  I would like to think that as a modern nation, we could do better. 


JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3842
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1685 on: July 19, 2016, 09:57:08 AM »
All I have to say is that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.  The USA is doing the same thing over and over again.  Are you happy with the results?

If the answer is no, change will need to happen.  I am not saying "take the guns away".  That is not the solution here.  I am not sure what the solution is, and I guess if everyone is ok with the price of freedom being 35000 lives every year, OK. 

If everyone is happy, then carry on, but I don't think that is the case, hence this forum. 

Just to make sure that my point is not taken out of context, I think the same conversation needs to happen with vehicles, with eating out(risk of obesity etc), and many of the other harmful activities that north Americans enjoy.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Gun homicides have been dropping for decades in the US without changes to our gun laws. I'm very happy with that result, especially considering that gun control laws in other post-industrialized countries haven't resulted in a noticeable increased decline in gun violence.

If you are ok with 35000 people killed a year, then so be it.  I would like to think that as a modern nation, we could do better.

Are you arguing that if guns were removed from society, we would immediately save 35,000 lives a year?

dycker1978

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 718
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1686 on: July 19, 2016, 10:14:53 AM »
All I have to say is that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.  The USA is doing the same thing over and over again.  Are you happy with the results?

If the answer is no, change will need to happen.  I am not saying "take the guns away".  That is not the solution here.  I am not sure what the solution is, and I guess if everyone is ok with the price of freedom being 35000 lives every year, OK. 

If everyone is happy, then carry on, but I don't think that is the case, hence this forum. 

Just to make sure that my point is not taken out of context, I think the same conversation needs to happen with vehicles, with eating out(risk of obesity etc), and many of the other harmful activities that north Americans enjoy.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Gun homicides have been dropping for decades in the US without changes to our gun laws. I'm very happy with that result, especially considering that gun control laws in other post-industrialized countries haven't resulted in a noticeable increased decline in gun violence.

If you are ok with 35000 people killed a year, then so be it.  I would like to think that as a modern nation, we could do better.

Are you arguing that if guns were removed from society, we would immediately save 35,000 lives a year?

No, I am saying that we should be working to reduce that number instead of just saying that it is the cost of freedom. 

I know there will always be guns and therefore the opportunity for gun violence.  I do not think that "removing all the guns" will help this.  But the Pro-gun crowd has said in the past that even education is against their right.  I am trying to change the conversation from getting rid of all the guns, to one of hey education needs to be the only mandatory thing to happen before one can get a gun.

It has been said that a majority of the 35000 deaths a year are cause by accidental discharge.  Should be not be looking into education to reduce that?

It has also been said that the minority of death is because of crime.  This will probably continue no matter what, because as every one says, criminals will get guns.

We need to stop the focus on keep/get rid of the guns to one of keep guns safe.  Some have mentioned that the people with concealed permits are far less likely to use their guns violently.  I would like to think that is partially because of on increased education for those people.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3842
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1687 on: July 19, 2016, 10:21:34 AM »
All I have to say is that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.  The USA is doing the same thing over and over again.  Are you happy with the results?

If the answer is no, change will need to happen.  I am not saying "take the guns away".  That is not the solution here.  I am not sure what the solution is, and I guess if everyone is ok with the price of freedom being 35000 lives every year, OK. 

If everyone is happy, then carry on, but I don't think that is the case, hence this forum. 

Just to make sure that my point is not taken out of context, I think the same conversation needs to happen with vehicles, with eating out(risk of obesity etc), and many of the other harmful activities that north Americans enjoy.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Gun homicides have been dropping for decades in the US without changes to our gun laws. I'm very happy with that result, especially considering that gun control laws in other post-industrialized countries haven't resulted in a noticeable increased decline in gun violence.

If you are ok with 35000 people killed a year, then so be it.  I would like to think that as a modern nation, we could do better.

Are you arguing that if guns were removed from society, we would immediately save 35,000 lives a year?

No, I am saying that we should be working to reduce that number instead of just saying that it is the cost of freedom. 

I know there will always be guns and therefore the opportunity for gun violence.  I do not think that "removing all the guns" will help this.  But the Pro-gun crowd has said in the past that even education is against their right.  I am trying to change the conversation from getting rid of all the guns, to one of hey education needs to be the only mandatory thing to happen before one can get a gun.

It has been said that a majority of the 35000 deaths a year are cause by accidental discharge.  Should be not be looking into education to reduce that?

It has also been said that the minority of death is because of crime.  This will probably continue no matter what, because as every one says, criminals will get guns.

We need to stop the focus on keep/get rid of the guns to one of keep guns safe.  Some have mentioned that the people with concealed permits are far less likely to use their guns violently.  I would like to think that is partially because of on increased education for those people.

That number is generally between 600 and 700 per year, not remotely near the tens of thousands.  The bulk of firearms deaths are suicides (roughly 2/3).

Permit holders do commit a very, very small percentage of crime.  It may be because of an increased education, but I would argue that the primary cause of their lack of gun violence is because they are not criminals.

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1242
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1688 on: July 19, 2016, 10:25:19 AM »
This kind of bothers me. First of all, neither I nor other pro-gun posters here are looking to convince you to get a gun. In my opinion, someone who is leery of the idea in the first place is not a good candidate because they won't have the confidence necessary to be a safe and (in the rare event the gun is needed) effective gun owner.

Second of all, (and I am also taking into consideration the statement "I would be more interested in seeing the number of middle class suburban home invasions that occur while the occupants are at home and that result in violence to said occupants that might have been prevented by a gun") the burden of evidence you are requesting is difficult or impossible to obtain. I could look at an incident and say "yep, a gun would have helped." Another person could look at the same incident and say "no, a gun wouldn't have helped." A third person could look t the same and say "a gun would have made this worse."

But that's exactly my point. I am not defending a perceived attempt to convince me to buy a gun. I've made my decision and I am comfortable with it. I'm just pointing out that, as you acknowledge, the best anyone can provide (at least that I've seen) is anecdotal evidence regarding realistic home defense scenarios. This means it's hard to deny that owning a gun for home defense (in many but not all scenarios) is an emotion-based decision, especially when you consider that a dog can add in much of the safety of owning a gun, with far less of the risk. Sure, you can mitigate much of that risk as a responsible gun owner, but the tiniest possibility of that particular tragedy is not something I personally care to introduce into my household.

That doesn't mean I am judging people who make that choice. I make emotional decisions all the time. Right now I'm saving for a house down payment over maxing my retirement accounts, for example. We're not robots. I just find this particular discussion interesting and thought I would add my two cents.

dycker1978

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 718
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1689 on: July 19, 2016, 10:26:00 AM »
All I have to say is that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.  The USA is doing the same thing over and over again.  Are you happy with the results?

If the answer is no, change will need to happen.  I am not saying "take the guns away".  That is not the solution here.  I am not sure what the solution is, and I guess if everyone is ok with the price of freedom being 35000 lives every year, OK. 

If everyone is happy, then carry on, but I don't think that is the case, hence this forum. 

Just to make sure that my point is not taken out of context, I think the same conversation needs to happen with vehicles, with eating out(risk of obesity etc), and many of the other harmful activities that north Americans enjoy.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Gun homicides have been dropping for decades in the US without changes to our gun laws. I'm very happy with that result, especially considering that gun control laws in other post-industrialized countries haven't resulted in a noticeable increased decline in gun violence.

If you are ok with 35000 people killed a year, then so be it.  I would like to think that as a modern nation, we could do better.

Are you arguing that if guns were removed from society, we would immediately save 35,000 lives a year?

No, I am saying that we should be working to reduce that number instead of just saying that it is the cost of freedom. 

I know there will always be guns and therefore the opportunity for gun violence.  I do not think that "removing all the guns" will help this.  But the Pro-gun crowd has said in the past that even education is against their right.  I am trying to change the conversation from getting rid of all the guns, to one of hey education needs to be the only mandatory thing to happen before one can get a gun.

It has been said that a majority of the 35000 deaths a year are cause by accidental discharge.  Should be not be looking into education to reduce that?

It has also been said that the minority of death is because of crime.  This will probably continue no matter what, because as every one says, criminals will get guns.

We need to stop the focus on keep/get rid of the guns to one of keep guns safe.  Some have mentioned that the people with concealed permits are far less likely to use their guns violently.  I would like to think that is partially because of on increased education for those people.

That number is generally between 600 and 700 per year, not remotely near the tens of thousands.  The bulk of firearms deaths are suicides (roughly 2/3).

Permit holders do commit a very, very small percentage of crime.  It may be because of an increased education, but I would argue that the primary cause of their lack of gun violence is because they are not criminals.

OK so 700 lives a year are not worth it?  Really?  if this is truly your stance or that of the "pro-gun" crowd, then there will never be change. 

This blows my mind.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3842
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1690 on: July 19, 2016, 10:28:04 AM »
All I have to say is that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.  The USA is doing the same thing over and over again.  Are you happy with the results?

If the answer is no, change will need to happen.  I am not saying "take the guns away".  That is not the solution here.  I am not sure what the solution is, and I guess if everyone is ok with the price of freedom being 35000 lives every year, OK. 

If everyone is happy, then carry on, but I don't think that is the case, hence this forum. 

Just to make sure that my point is not taken out of context, I think the same conversation needs to happen with vehicles, with eating out(risk of obesity etc), and many of the other harmful activities that north Americans enjoy.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Gun homicides have been dropping for decades in the US without changes to our gun laws. I'm very happy with that result, especially considering that gun control laws in other post-industrialized countries haven't resulted in a noticeable increased decline in gun violence.

If you are ok with 35000 people killed a year, then so be it.  I would like to think that as a modern nation, we could do better.

Are you arguing that if guns were removed from society, we would immediately save 35,000 lives a year?

No, I am saying that we should be working to reduce that number instead of just saying that it is the cost of freedom. 

I know there will always be guns and therefore the opportunity for gun violence.  I do not think that "removing all the guns" will help this.  But the Pro-gun crowd has said in the past that even education is against their right.  I am trying to change the conversation from getting rid of all the guns, to one of hey education needs to be the only mandatory thing to happen before one can get a gun.

It has been said that a majority of the 35000 deaths a year are cause by accidental discharge.  Should be not be looking into education to reduce that?

It has also been said that the minority of death is because of crime.  This will probably continue no matter what, because as every one says, criminals will get guns.

We need to stop the focus on keep/get rid of the guns to one of keep guns safe.  Some have mentioned that the people with concealed permits are far less likely to use their guns violently.  I would like to think that is partially because of on increased education for those people.

That number is generally between 600 and 700 per year, not remotely near the tens of thousands.  The bulk of firearms deaths are suicides (roughly 2/3).

Permit holders do commit a very, very small percentage of crime.  It may be because of an increased education, but I would argue that the primary cause of their lack of gun violence is because they are not criminals.

OK so 700 lives a year are not worth it?  Really?  if this is truly your stance or that of the "pro-gun" crowd, then there will never be change. 

This blows my mind.

That's not remotely what I said.  I corrected your assertion because it was off by a factor of 27 (and that's being generous).

What should blow your mind is how you came to the conclusion that I said "700 lives a year are not worth it" when there is literally zero evidence towards that conclusion provided in my post. 

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Age: 35
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1691 on: July 19, 2016, 11:24:11 AM »
OK so 700 lives a year are not worth it?  Really?  if this is truly your stance or that of the "pro-gun" crowd, then there will never be change. 

This blows my mind.

The idea that people need to be protected from themselves, because the government knows better, is what blows my mind. That removes the power from the individual and leads down a road to tyranny and totalitarianism and it's sad to see that becoming more and more acceptable in America.

I'm not sure if you're outraged about the number bring too high at 700 or that the number exists at all. If you're outraged that the number is too high, how many deaths per year would you find acceptable to exercise your 2nd Amendment constitutionally-protected rights? If you think the number should be zero, explain how you can provide a workable solution to achieve that, which it isn't, but maybe you have the Holy Grail of public policy recommendations that might work where so many others have failed.

Honestly, I don't think gun control has ever been about saving lives, despite the rhetoric. That's the cynic in me. Gun control is about what the Democrat party is, preaching to you about how if you vote for them they'll make your lives better, safer and then failing to deliver. Obama said this best at Dallas police funeral speech discussing racial violence and the police "In the end, it's not about finding policies that work; it’s about forging consensus, and fighting cynicism, and finding the will to make change." Or here in California when Gov. Jerry Brown was passing the minimum wage increase "Economically, minimum wages may not make sense. But morally, socially, and politically they make every sense because it binds the community together to make sure parents can take care of their kids."

dycker1978

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 718
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1692 on: July 19, 2016, 11:30:56 AM »
OK so 700 lives a year are not worth it?  Really?  if this is truly your stance or that of the "pro-gun" crowd, then there will never be change. 

This blows my mind.

The idea that people need to be protected from themselves, because the government knows better, is what blows my mind. That removes the power from the individual and leads down a road to tyranny and totalitarianism and it's sad to see that becoming more and more acceptable in America.

I'm not sure if you're outraged about the number bring too high at 700 or that the number exists at all. If you're outraged that the number is too high, how many deaths per year would you find acceptable to exercise your 2nd Amendment constitutionally-protected rights? If you think the number should be zero, explain how you can provide a workable solution to achieve that, which it isn't, but maybe you have the Holy Grail of public policy recommendations that might work where so many others have failed.

Honestly, I don't think gun control has ever been about saving lives, despite the rhetoric. That's the cynic in me. Gun control is about what the Democrat party is, preaching to you about how if you vote for them they'll make your lives better, safer and then failing to deliver. Obama said this best at Dallas police funeral speech discussing racial violence and the police "In the end, it's not about finding policies that work; it’s about forging consensus, and fighting cynicism, and finding the will to make change." Or here in California when Gov. Jerry Brown was passing the minimum wage increase "Economically, minimum wages may not make sense. But morally, socially, and politically they make every sense because it binds the community together to make sure parents can take care of their kids."

I know where you stand from previous posts.

However I am not talking gun control in any way shape or form.  Have 1000 of them yourself if you wish.  I am just saying that I think it would be beneficial to have a training course  that goes with buying them.  Well your first one, after you have the course you would not need it again.  Hell use the taxes that are collected to pay for it.  God know enough tax money is wasted in far more useless endeavors.

Yaeger, I know that it is impossible to reduce the number to zero.  Some people will be idiots no matter what you do, but any reduction is worth it.


winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1693 on: July 19, 2016, 11:42:15 AM »
OK so 700 lives a year are not worth it?  Really?  if this is truly your stance or that of the "pro-gun" crowd, then there will never be change. 

This blows my mind.

The idea that people need to be protected from themselves, because the government knows better, is what blows my mind. That removes the power from the individual and leads down a road to tyranny and totalitarianism and it's sad to see that becoming more and more acceptable in America.

I'm not sure if you're outraged about the number bring too high at 700 or that the number exists at all. If you're outraged that the number is too high, how many deaths per year would you find acceptable to exercise your 2nd Amendment constitutionally-protected rights? If you think the number should be zero, explain how you can provide a workable solution to achieve that, which it isn't, but maybe you have the Holy Grail of public policy recommendations that might work where so many others have failed.

Honestly, I don't think gun control has ever been about saving lives, despite the rhetoric. That's the cynic in me. Gun control is about what the Democrat party is, preaching to you about how if you vote for them they'll make your lives better, safer and then failing to deliver. Obama said this best at Dallas police funeral speech discussing racial violence and the police "In the end, it's not about finding policies that work; it’s about forging consensus, and fighting cynicism, and finding the will to make change." Or here in California when Gov. Jerry Brown was passing the minimum wage increase "Economically, minimum wages may not make sense. But morally, socially, and politically they make every sense because it binds the community together to make sure parents can take care of their kids."

I know where you stand from previous posts.

However I am not talking gun control in any way shape or form.  Have 1000 of them yourself if you wish.  I am just saying that I think it would be beneficial to have a training course  that goes with buying them.  Well your first one, after you have the course you would not need it again.  Hell use the taxes that are collected to pay for it.  God know enough tax money is wasted in far more useless endeavors.

Yaeger, I know that it is impossible to reduce the number to zero.  Some people will be idiots no matter what you do, but any reduction is worth it.

I don't see how this can be true, when the "IT" in "worth it" is an unknown variable. Worth what? Is reducing the number in half from 700 to 350 worth IT? That depends on what IT is. Is IT $100 Billion? Is IT 10's of thousands of man-hours lost? Is IT some (even small) loss of freedom?

Preventing Muslims from getting pilots licenses would have prevented 9/11. Worth it? Preventing Muslims from living in France would have prevented the Paris and Nice attacks. Worth it? Suppressing the BLM movement and anti-police speech would have prevented the attacks on police in Dallas and Baton Rouge. Worth it? Banning homophobic speech would have prevented hundreds or thousands of hate crimes against gays over the years. Worth it?


dycker1978

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 718
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1694 on: July 19, 2016, 12:38:15 PM »
OK so 700 lives a year are not worth it?  Really?  if this is truly your stance or that of the "pro-gun" crowd, then there will never be change. 

This blows my mind.

The idea that people need to be protected from themselves, because the government knows better, is what blows my mind. That removes the power from the individual and leads down a road to tyranny and totalitarianism and it's sad to see that becoming more and more acceptable in America.

I'm not sure if you're outraged about the number bring too high at 700 or that the number exists at all. If you're outraged that the number is too high, how many deaths per year would you find acceptable to exercise your 2nd Amendment constitutionally-protected rights? If you think the number should be zero, explain how you can provide a workable solution to achieve that, which it isn't, but maybe you have the Holy Grail of public policy recommendations that might work where so many others have failed.

Honestly, I don't think gun control has ever been about saving lives, despite the rhetoric. That's the cynic in me. Gun control is about what the Democrat party is, preaching to you about how if you vote for them they'll make your lives better, safer and then failing to deliver. Obama said this best at Dallas police funeral speech discussing racial violence and the police "In the end, it's not about finding policies that work; it’s about forging consensus, and fighting cynicism, and finding the will to make change." Or here in California when Gov. Jerry Brown was passing the minimum wage increase "Economically, minimum wages may not make sense. But morally, socially, and politically they make every sense because it binds the community together to make sure parents can take care of their kids."

I know where you stand from previous posts.

However I am not talking gun control in any way shape or form.  Have 1000 of them yourself if you wish.  I am just saying that I think it would be beneficial to have a training course  that goes with buying them.  Well your first one, after you have the course you would not need it again.  Hell use the taxes that are collected to pay for it.  God know enough tax money is wasted in far more useless endeavors.

Yaeger, I know that it is impossible to reduce the number to zero.  Some people will be idiots no matter what you do, but any reduction is worth it.

I don't see how this can be true, when the "IT" in "worth it" is an unknown variable. Worth what? Is reducing the number in half from 700 to 350 worth IT? That depends on what IT is. Is IT $100 Billion? Is IT 10's of thousands of man-hours lost? Is IT some (even small) loss of freedom?

Preventing Muslims from getting pilots licenses would have prevented 9/11. Worth it? Preventing Muslims from living in France would have prevented the Paris and Nice attacks. Worth it? Suppressing the BLM movement and anti-police speech would have prevented the attacks on police in Dallas and Baton Rouge. Worth it? Banning homophobic speech would have prevented hundreds or thousands of hate crimes against gays over the years. Worth it?

To address your first point.  What is a life worth?  How much would you spend to save the life of someone important to you.  I think the amount of people that file bankruptcy because of medical bills in the US speaks to any, it doesn't matter.

The second point you made has a ton of bias's in it which itself id problematic.
1. Muslims did not attack the World trade Center, AlQueda(sorry about the spelling) did.  They were a terror group that also attacked Muslim people.
2. Muslims did not attack either place in Paris, ISIS did.  Again ISIS has attacked Baghdad, about 2 weeks ago, killing 200 Muslim people because they did not believe the same.
3. BLM did not kill any one, they were involved in a peaceful process. A black man did. 
4. Homophobic speech.  You are telling me that we should not ban homophobic speech?  I should be banned.  People of any gender or sexuality deserve to be treated with the same respect as the next person.   Hate speech should be banned.

We cannot go around and hate many on the actions of few. 

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1695 on: July 19, 2016, 12:54:34 PM »
OK so 700 lives a year are not worth it?  Really?  if this is truly your stance or that of the "pro-gun" crowd, then there will never be change. 

This blows my mind.

The idea that people need to be protected from themselves, because the government knows better, is what blows my mind. That removes the power from the individual and leads down a road to tyranny and totalitarianism and it's sad to see that becoming more and more acceptable in America.

I'm not sure if you're outraged about the number bring too high at 700 or that the number exists at all. If you're outraged that the number is too high, how many deaths per year would you find acceptable to exercise your 2nd Amendment constitutionally-protected rights? If you think the number should be zero, explain how you can provide a workable solution to achieve that, which it isn't, but maybe you have the Holy Grail of public policy recommendations that might work where so many others have failed.

Honestly, I don't think gun control has ever been about saving lives, despite the rhetoric. That's the cynic in me. Gun control is about what the Democrat party is, preaching to you about how if you vote for them they'll make your lives better, safer and then failing to deliver. Obama said this best at Dallas police funeral speech discussing racial violence and the police "In the end, it's not about finding policies that work; it’s about forging consensus, and fighting cynicism, and finding the will to make change." Or here in California when Gov. Jerry Brown was passing the minimum wage increase "Economically, minimum wages may not make sense. But morally, socially, and politically they make every sense because it binds the community together to make sure parents can take care of their kids."

I know where you stand from previous posts.

However I am not talking gun control in any way shape or form.  Have 1000 of them yourself if you wish.  I am just saying that I think it would be beneficial to have a training course  that goes with buying them.  Well your first one, after you have the course you would not need it again.  Hell use the taxes that are collected to pay for it.  God know enough tax money is wasted in far more useless endeavors.

Yaeger, I know that it is impossible to reduce the number to zero.  Some people will be idiots no matter what you do, but any reduction is worth it.

I don't see how this can be true, when the "IT" in "worth it" is an unknown variable. Worth what? Is reducing the number in half from 700 to 350 worth IT? That depends on what IT is. Is IT $100 Billion? Is IT 10's of thousands of man-hours lost? Is IT some (even small) loss of freedom?

Preventing Muslims from getting pilots licenses would have prevented 9/11. Worth it? Preventing Muslims from living in France would have prevented the Paris and Nice attacks. Worth it? Suppressing the BLM movement and anti-police speech would have prevented the attacks on police in Dallas and Baton Rouge. Worth it? Banning homophobic speech would have prevented hundreds or thousands of hate crimes against gays over the years. Worth it?

To address your first point.  What is a life worth?  How much would you spend to save the life of someone important to you.  I think the amount of people that file bankruptcy because of medical bills in the US speaks to any, it doesn't matter.

The second point you made has a ton of bias's in it which itself id problematic.
1. Muslims did not attack the World trade Center, AlQueda(sorry about the spelling) did.  They were a terror group that also attacked Muslim people.
2. Muslims did not attack either place in Paris, ISIS did.  Again ISIS has attacked Baghdad, about 2 weeks ago, killing 200 Muslim people because they did not believe the same.
3. BLM did not kill any one, they were involved in a peaceful process. A black man did. 
4. Homophobic speech.  You are telling me that we should not ban homophobic speech?  I should be banned.  People of any gender or sexuality deserve to be treated with the same respect as the next person.   Hate speech should be banned.

We cannot go around and hate many on the actions of few.

This basically played out how I expected it to. (I do recognize you are not American, but I am and it seems we are primarily talking about US firearms laws.)

The First Amendment of the US Constitution states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This is commonly understood to protect freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom to assemble, associate and protest etc.

#1 is an obvious violation of the first amendment and you are correct to oppose it, as do I.
#2 is an obvious violation of the first amendment and you are correct to oppose it, as do I.
#3 is an obvious violation of the first amendment and you are correct to oppose it, as do I.
#4 is an obvious violation of the first amendment and yet you support the idea. We should not ban homophobic speech. In fact, it would be ILLEGAL to ban such speech in the US. What is the point of protecting free speech, if we only protect the speech that society deems acceptable?

From what I can tell, you only support upholding the rights of people and groups you sympathize with. You sympathize with Muslims, BLM, etc so you support protecting the rights those groups. You do not sympathize with homophobes so you do not support protecting the rights of that group.

I would infer that you don't sympathize with gun owners, so you are not very interested in protecting their rights. The US Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms to the same extent it protects the right to protest, the right to practice whatever religion, the right to say mean things about people who may not deserve it.



hoosier

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 100
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1696 on: July 19, 2016, 01:08:06 PM »
Lively discussion here...I like it.

I think we can break down gun deaths into 3 categories: criminal activity, bat-shit-craziness (leading to criminal activity), and stupidity.  Criminals, by definition, cannot be legislated.  Any new "law" isn't likely to work here. 

Anybody bat-shit-crazy enough to shoot somebody isn't going to follow the letter of the law either (mental illness is a real thing, and needs to be figured out...but I have no idea how).  Maybe a law works here, maybe not.

You can make laws to punish the stupid, but they are still going to be stupid.  Stupidity can be fixed through education, but education on responsible gun ownership shouldn't be the responsibility of the government to mandate via law, it should be that of the owners.  I don't rely on the government to teach my children how to...well, really, do anything.  Yes, they can provide resources to aid in that education, but the overall accountability of a child's education should fall squarely on the parents' shoulders.

Personal finance and safe gun use should be required education...and if it were this country would be a lot better off right now.  Sadly, most parents can't/won't/don't teach any of this stuff to their children.

Kids need less exposure to inconsequential violence via TV, movies, and video games and more exposure to actual guns.  Take them to the gun range, teach them the 4 rules, and show them what happens when you shoot a piece of steel with a gun...and remind them that the human body is less resilient than steel when it comes to a gunshot.  Take them hunting so they see what happens when a bullet meets flesh.  Burn the respect that guns deserve into them...it is literally life and death. 

I have guns in my house.  I have kids from 2mo - 11 yo in my house.  The littles ones can't access the guns, the middle ones can't either and know that guns shouldn't be touched unless there is an adult with them, and the big ones know they will have hell to pay (maybe even literally) if they break one of the 4 rules or engage any any form of anything involving guns unsupervised by me, or without my expressed permission. 

tldr, education more likely to have a positive impact than more gun laws.

robartsd

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1008
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1697 on: July 19, 2016, 01:17:12 PM »
The second point you made has a ton of bias's in it which itself id problematic.
1. Muslims did not attack the World trade Center, AlQueda(sorry about the spelling) did.  They were a terror group that also attacked Muslim people.
2. Muslims did not attack either place in Paris, ISIS did.  Again ISIS has attacked Baghdad, about 2 weeks ago, killing 200 Muslim people because they did not believe the same.
3. BLM did not kill any one, they were involved in a peaceful process. A black man did. 

We cannot go around and hate many on the actions of few.
This is exactly the point winkeyman was making - it is not right to curtail the rights of thousands/millions/billions of people just to prevent the unfortunate consequences of a few bad people.

4. Homophobic speech.  You are telling me that we should not ban homophobic speech?  I should be banned.  People of any gender or sexuality deserve to be treated with the same respect as the next person.   Hate speech should be banned.
People should be just as free to preach that homosexuality is immoral as they are to preach any other religious belief as long as they don't incite violence or other violations of the rights of other people. If "hate speech" is carefully defined to restrict it to only penalizing expression that incites harmful action without restricting or having a chilling effect on free expression in any other way, then I agree "hate speech" should be a criminal act.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1698 on: July 19, 2016, 01:20:52 PM »
Criminals, by definition, cannot be legislated.  Any new "law" isn't likely to work here.

That seems to be the 'if you outlaw guns argument.' that I've heard for years. Recently, I keep hearing this claim from some rightwing sites (cough - redstate - cough) that the liberal media is exaggerating how easy it is to buy guns illegally and that actually it is very difficult. If what they say is true, that would seem to indicate criminal gun violence can actually be legislated to some degree.

dycker1978

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 718
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1699 on: July 19, 2016, 01:27:14 PM »
The second point you made has a ton of bias's in it which itself id problematic.
1. Muslims did not attack the World trade Center, AlQueda(sorry about the spelling) did.  They were a terror group that also attacked Muslim people.
2. Muslims did not attack either place in Paris, ISIS did.  Again ISIS has attacked Baghdad, about 2 weeks ago, killing 200 Muslim people because they did not believe the same.
3. BLM did not kill any one, they were involved in a peaceful process. A black man did. 

We cannot go around and hate many on the actions of few.
This is exactly the point winkeyman was making - it is not right to curtail the rights of thousands/millions/billions of people just to prevent the unfortunate consequences of a few bad people.

4. Homophobic speech.  You are telling me that we should not ban homophobic speech?  I should be banned.  People of any gender or sexuality deserve to be treated with the same respect as the next person.   Hate speech should be banned.
People should be just as free to preach that homosexuality is immoral as they are to preach any other religious belief as long as they don't incite violence or other violations of the rights of other people. If "hate speech" is carefully defined to restrict it to only penalizing expression that incites harmful action without restricting or having a chilling effect on free expression in any other way, then I agree "hate speech" should be a criminal act.
I can concede to your last point.  The point that was made is that homophobes have caused hundreds of thousand crimes to be committed against gays.  I inferred that this had gone beyond peaceful at this point, as he stated a crime hade been committed.

Again, education is the key.  Educate people and bias disappears.