Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 345582 times)

robartsd

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 833
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1750 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 #1751 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: 589
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1752 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.


hoosier

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 76
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1753 on: July 19, 2016, 01:31:15 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.

That would be an inference on your part.  I made no mention of making it more difficult to buy a gun.  Do you assume that if it comes from one of those righties that it must be unsubstantiated propaganda?

But, in reality, it already is difficult to legally buy a gun.  When's the last time you tried?  I did last week...lots of paperwork, ID checking, background checks, etc.  I don't see how a criminal could legally buy a gun, unless they aren't yet a criminal.  Perhaps they are buying them illegally....should we make illegally buying a gun "more illegal"?
« Last Edit: July 19, 2016, 01:34:13 PM by hoosier »

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1754 on: July 19, 2016, 01:49:01 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.

That would be an inference on your part.  I made no mention of making it more difficult to buy a gun.  Do you assume that if it comes from one of those righties that it must be unsubstantiated propaganda?

But, in reality, it already is difficult to legally buy a gun.  When's the last time you tried?  I did last week...lots of paperwork, ID checking, background checks, etc.  I don't see how a criminal could legally buy a gun, unless they aren't yet a criminal.  Perhaps they are buying them illegally....should we make illegally buying a gun "more illegal"?

It's hard to understand what the gun-control people are after if we ignore the obvious, thinly veiled intent of control.

The goal is total or near-total civilian disarmament.

Politicians in Texas pass a law requiring abortion clinics to meet unrealistically high surgical-grade standards. The effect is half the state's abortion clinics close down. The states goal is to protect women from unsafe facilities. Liberals have absolutely NO PROBLEM calling this out for what it obviously is; an attempt to limit access to abortion without an (Unconstitutional) outright ban.

Politicians in California/NY/Congress/wherever pass a law registering/restricting certain guns, requiring waiting periods and mandatory training/storage requirements etc. The effect is that civilian access to firearms is restricted. The stated purpose is public safety. The obvious intent is to infringe upon the 2A without an outright (Unconstitutional) ban, and pave the way for total disarmament. For some reason, pro-gun people choose to engage in a "debate" about this instead of just calling it out for what it is.

It boggles the mind.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1755 on: July 19, 2016, 01:57:36 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.

That would be an inference on your part.  I made no mention of making it more difficult to buy a gun.  Do you assume that if it comes from one of those righties that it must be unsubstantiated propaganda?

But, in reality, it already is difficult to legally buy a gun.  When's the last time you tried?  I did last week...lots of paperwork, ID checking, background checks, etc.  I don't see how a criminal could legally buy a gun, unless they aren't yet a criminal.  Perhaps they are buying them illegally....should we make illegally buying a gun "more illegal"?

The message these sites (which seem to be pro-gun) appear to be making is NOT whether buying a gun legally is easy or hard, but rather buying a gun ILLEGALLY is VERY DIFFICULT. I just found that message counter intuitive to the traditional pro-gun argument that gun laws only impact the law-abiding citizens.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3352
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1756 on: July 19, 2016, 02:02:29 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.

That would be an inference on your part.  I made no mention of making it more difficult to buy a gun.  Do you assume that if it comes from one of those righties that it must be unsubstantiated propaganda?

But, in reality, it already is difficult to legally buy a gun.  When's the last time you tried?  I did last week...lots of paperwork, ID checking, background checks, etc.  I don't see how a criminal could legally buy a gun, unless they aren't yet a criminal.  Perhaps they are buying them illegally....should we make illegally buying a gun "more illegal"?

The message these sites (which seem to be pro-gun) appear to be making is NOT whether buying a gun legally is easy or hard, but rather buying a gun ILLEGALLY is VERY DIFFICULT. I just found that message counter intuitive to the traditional pro-gun argument that gun laws only impact the law-abiding citizens.

A lot of gun laws have nothing to do with buying/selling.  Look at Clinton's 1994 ban, or magazine restrictions, or California in general.  NJ law says that I cannot get a carry permit unless I a need for one (self defense is not recognized by NJ as a need).  That doesn't stop criminals, though.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1757 on: July 19, 2016, 02:27:21 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.

That would be an inference on your part.  I made no mention of making it more difficult to buy a gun.  Do you assume that if it comes from one of those righties that it must be unsubstantiated propaganda?

But, in reality, it already is difficult to legally buy a gun.  When's the last time you tried?  I did last week...lots of paperwork, ID checking, background checks, etc.  I don't see how a criminal could legally buy a gun, unless they aren't yet a criminal.  Perhaps they are buying them illegally....should we make illegally buying a gun "more illegal"?

The message these sites (which seem to be pro-gun) appear to be making is NOT whether buying a gun legally is easy or hard, but rather buying a gun ILLEGALLY is VERY DIFFICULT. I just found that message counter intuitive to the traditional pro-gun argument that gun laws only impact the law-abiding citizens.

A lot of gun laws have nothing to do with buying/selling.  Look at Clinton's 1994 ban, or magazine restrictions, or California in general.  NJ law says that I cannot get a carry permit unless I a need for one (self defense is not recognized by NJ as a need).  That doesn't stop criminals, though.

I see your point in regards to concealed carry permits. There is no difficulty at all in simply ignoring the law. But in regards to a criminal first getting their hands on a gun, if it is difficult to buy a legal gun illegally, then wouldn't it also be difficult to purchase a banned gun?

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3352
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1758 on: July 19, 2016, 02:39:19 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.

That would be an inference on your part.  I made no mention of making it more difficult to buy a gun.  Do you assume that if it comes from one of those righties that it must be unsubstantiated propaganda?

But, in reality, it already is difficult to legally buy a gun.  When's the last time you tried?  I did last week...lots of paperwork, ID checking, background checks, etc.  I don't see how a criminal could legally buy a gun, unless they aren't yet a criminal.  Perhaps they are buying them illegally....should we make illegally buying a gun "more illegal"?

The message these sites (which seem to be pro-gun) appear to be making is NOT whether buying a gun legally is easy or hard, but rather buying a gun ILLEGALLY is VERY DIFFICULT. I just found that message counter intuitive to the traditional pro-gun argument that gun laws only impact the law-abiding citizens.

A lot of gun laws have nothing to do with buying/selling.  Look at Clinton's 1994 ban, or magazine restrictions, or California in general.  NJ law says that I cannot get a carry permit unless I a need for one (self defense is not recognized by NJ as a need).  That doesn't stop criminals, though.

I see your point in regards to concealed carry permits. There is no difficulty at all in simply ignoring the law. But in regards to a criminal first getting their hands on a gun, if it is difficult to buy a legal gun illegally, then wouldn't it also be difficult to purchase a banned gun?

It's not generally a specific gun itself that is banned -- for example, I could land myself with a felony in New Jersey for simply transporting hollowpoint bullets (generally used for hunting/self defense) without jumping through the appropriate hoops.  Simply putting a normal magazine release on an AR15 rifle in California turns that into an illegal rifle. Numerous states have magazine limits, so the act of inserting a higher capacity magazine into a gun is illegal.  The laws here are convoluted enough in NJ that I don't have a gun at all here - my collection is stored with (adult / no kids) family until I live someplace else.

Viceland is going to do an episode on gun running, which I will find incredibly interesting because I have no knowledge at all of the illegal gun trade.  I don't imagine it is difficult to acquire one outside of legal channels, if you know where to go (take cocaine, for example...pretty tough to buy if you're a law-abiding citizen, but easy if you're a drug addict looking for a fix).

Tom Bri

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 514
  • Location: Small Town, Flyover Country
  • More just cheap, than Mustachian
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1759 on: July 19, 2016, 08:15:19 PM »
A very large number of people have experience buying pot, either as kids or adults. Was it hard? Maybe inconvenient, but not hard. You just ask around. You need a gun after they are no longer legal to own? Just ask your pot dealer. He'll be able to ask up the chain and get one for you.
Criminals and terrorists in Europe seem to have no trouble getting military grade weapons, in spite of tougher gun laws than most Americans are used to. Mexican drug cartels are very well-armed, in spite of much, much stricter gun laws than the US.
People who think gun control will reduce the number of guns used by criminals, are delusional.

Drifterrider

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1760 on: July 20, 2016, 05:20:26 AM »

 
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.
[/quote]

And just who determines what is "hate" speech? Once you "ban" the first amendment, the rest will follow.  You really don't want to live in a country such as that.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1761 on: July 20, 2016, 07:13:30 AM »
A very large number of people have experience buying pot, either as kids or adults. Was it hard? Maybe inconvenient, but not hard. You just ask around. You need a gun after they are no longer legal to own? Just ask your pot dealer. He'll be able to ask up the chain and get one for you.
Criminals and terrorists in Europe seem to have no trouble getting military grade weapons, in spite of tougher gun laws than most Americans are used to. Mexican drug cartels are very well-armed, in spite of much, much stricter gun laws than the US.
People who think gun control will reduce the number of guns used by criminals, are delusional.

I just find myself weighing two opposing pro-gun perspectives: it's so easy to buy illegal guns that criminals will have no problem getting one versus liberal media is exaggerating how easy it is for anyone to to buy illegal guns. I suspect the truth may be somewhere in the middle such that hardcore professional criminals may indeed have the connections to get guns, regardless of their legal status, while your low level street thugs and non-criminal mental cases would find it difficult to get a gun on the spur of the moment. I haven't done the research, but I would think most incidents of gun violence is performed by the latter group. Maybe I am delusional, but the idea that gun control will have NO impact on gun violence sounds equally implausible.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2016, 07:15:48 AM by dramaman »

Making Cookies

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1652
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1762 on: July 20, 2016, 07:20:31 AM »


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

This is idiocy. Castle doctrine and the right to self-defense. If a stranger enters your home, there are few places in the world where it is unlawful to use deadly force. Different if you chase them, subdue them and execute, etc... In most cases, you have nothing to fear. However, you will need to make sure that when the police do show up that you clearly identify yourself and dont get shot by LE.


The castle doctrine does not exist in Canada. The cops will charge you with assault/attempted murder/murder if you use a weapon to defend yourself in your own home. Even if your life is in immediate danger. OCCASIONALLY, the crown prosecutors will decide not to proceed with prosecution, but don't bet on it. http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/matt-gurney-after-two-years-judge-acquits-man-who-defended-himself-with-a-gun

So potentially you are supposed to sit there and die if the police didn't do there job and keep the nutcases locked up.

Thanks. I'd rather go to jail for 30 years than have my family hurt or worse.

I figure there is a .0001% chance of anything happening to us here in smalltown violent USA b/c we don't run with a rough crowd, live in a nice neighborhood, safe town, etc. However in my time, I've seen my share of drug dealers, and more than my share of angry or mentally disturbed people who seemed to seek confrontation.

Making Cookies

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1652
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1763 on: July 20, 2016, 07:24:43 AM »
Gun prices aren't the largest deterrent. It's the ongoing cost of ammo and range fees that will sink your budget. They make a $8 bucket of golf balls that look cheap in comparison.

No cost if you don't use them.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1764 on: July 20, 2016, 07:54:00 AM »


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

This is idiocy. Castle doctrine and the right to self-defense. If a stranger enters your home, there are few places in the world where it is unlawful to use deadly force. Different if you chase them, subdue them and execute, etc... In most cases, you have nothing to fear. However, you will need to make sure that when the police do show up that you clearly identify yourself and dont get shot by LE.


The castle doctrine does not exist in Canada. The cops will charge you with assault/attempted murder/murder if you use a weapon to defend yourself in your own home. Even if your life is in immediate danger. OCCASIONALLY, the crown prosecutors will decide not to proceed with prosecution, but don't bet on it. http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/matt-gurney-after-two-years-judge-acquits-man-who-defended-himself-with-a-gun

So potentially you are supposed to sit there and die if the police didn't do there job and keep the nutcases locked up.

Thanks. I'd rather go to jail for 30 years than have my family hurt or worse.

I figure there is a .0001% chance of anything happening to us here in smalltown violent USA b/c we don't run with a rough crowd, live in a nice neighborhood, safe town, etc. However in my time, I've seen my share of drug dealers, and more than my share of angry or mentally disturbed people who seemed to seek confrontation.

This is the case in Canada, the UK, and many other countries.

Keep this in mind when debating gun rights (and many other issues) with people from these countries. They see things... differently.

Cathy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1043
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1765 on: July 20, 2016, 05:55:02 PM »
... The castle doctrine does not exist in Canada. ...

So potentially you are supposed to sit there and die if the police didn't do there job and keep the nutcases locked up. ...

This is the case in Canada, the UK, and many other countries. ...

While I won't expound on the situation in the present-day UK or in the unnamed "many other countries", the castle doctrine originates from UK case law, and in particular Semayne's Case, [1558-1774] All ER Rep 62 (KB 1604) [PDF attached], and, so far as I can tell, this case is still regularly cited with approval in Canada. For example, in R v. Forde, the Ontario Court of Appeal concluded that "The law is clear that flight from one's own home is not a reasonable option for self-preservation, and that the defence of self-defence will still apply even if there is another way out of the house. The rationale is that one's home is already one's last line of defence against an assailant". 2011 ONCA 592 at ¶ 49 (emphasis mine), citing R v. Proulx, 1998 CanLII 6317 (BC CA). I don't propose to go into detail on the law of self-defence in Canada, but the statement by Al1961 above is not accurate.


... The cops will charge you with assault/attempted murder/murder if you use a weapon to defend yourself in your own home. Even if your life is in immediate danger. OCCASIONALLY, the crown prosecutors will decide not to proceed with prosecution, but don't bet on it. http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/matt-gurney-after-two-years-judge-acquits-man-who-defended-himself-with-a-gun

Just because the police have charged you with a crime, it does not necessarily mean that you will be convicted of that crime. As you note yourself, it doesn't even necessarily mean that you will be brought to trial for that charge, because the choice of whether to pursue charges rests with the prosecutor. See, e.g., Krieger v. Law Society of Alberta, 2002 SCC 65 at ¶ 46 (noting that prosecutorial discretion includes the decision of "whether to bring the prosecution of a charge laid by police").

The article you cite involves somebody who was acquitted of (i.e. not convicted of) certain charges related to engaging in self-defence in the home. It's unclear how this article assists your argument.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2016, 05:57:10 PM by Cathy »
This post contains only general information on the issues raised by this topic. This post does not provide help tailored to your specific situation. There are many facts that could be relevant to your specific situation and I am not in possession of those facts. If you need help tailored to your specific situation, you should retain an appropriate professional and not rely on this post.

Curbside Prophet

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 182
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1766 on: July 20, 2016, 06:44:37 PM »
Since dogs were brought up, I just want to say that if you have one, do NOT put up a "beware of dog" or "caution dog bites" type of sign on your fence.  If your dog ever bites someone the sign can be used as evidence that you knowingly had a dangerous animal and you can be held liable. 

While a dog can be an excellent deterrent to crime, they should never be trained to be your security system.  The stigma that certain breeds are "bad" is already prevalent enough.  Train your dogs to be respectful.  You wouldn't train your children to attack a stranger on sight.  The same should go for your dog.  There's no such thing as a bad dog, just a bad owner.

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1767 on: July 20, 2016, 07:42:57 PM »
Since dogs were brought up, I just want to say that if you have one, do NOT put up a "beware of dog" or "caution dog bites" type of sign on your fence.  If your dog ever bites someone the sign can be used as evidence that you knowingly had a dangerous animal and you can be held liable. 

While a dog can be an excellent deterrent to crime, they should never be trained to be your security system.  The stigma that certain breeds are "bad" is already prevalent enough.  Train your dogs to be respectful.  You wouldn't train your children to attack a stranger on sight.  The same should go for your dog.  There's no such thing as a bad dog, just a bad owner.

Interesting about the signs, but that makes sense. I've never used them myself. My dog would also easily be defeated by a burglar with a bag of treats (hell, the treats probably would not be necessary), but she is large and has an intimidating bark, which she aims at anyone she doesn't know who approaches the house (even if they have a bag of treats!). More than enough security value, from my perspective. Training a guard dog for a SFH seems excessive and at least as likely as a gun to lead to an unfortunate accident. Definitely not something I would recommend.

Curbside Prophet

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 182
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1768 on: July 20, 2016, 07:58:44 PM »
Since dogs were brought up, I just want to say that if you have one, do NOT put up a "beware of dog" or "caution dog bites" type of sign on your fence.  If your dog ever bites someone the sign can be used as evidence that you knowingly had a dangerous animal and you can be held liable. 

While a dog can be an excellent deterrent to crime, they should never be trained to be your security system.  The stigma that certain breeds are "bad" is already prevalent enough.  Train your dogs to be respectful.  You wouldn't train your children to attack a stranger on sight.  The same should go for your dog.  There's no such thing as a bad dog, just a bad owner.

Interesting about the signs, but that makes sense. I've never used them myself. My dog would also easily be defeated by a burglar with a bag of treats (hell, the treats probably would not be necessary), but she is large and has an intimidating bark, which she aims at anyone she doesn't know who approaches the house (even if they have a bag of treats!). More than enough security value, from my perspective. Training a guard dog for a SFH seems excessive and at least as likely as a gun to lead to an unfortunate accident. Definitely not something I would recommend.

Yup just the look and bark of a dog is usually enough for most people. 

dcamnc

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 288
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1769 on: July 20, 2016, 08:08:50 PM »
I'm a cop, so I have one by default. I had a bunch, but when I got into personal finance, I sold most of them. Still have a decked out ar, a glock competition 9mm, a .22 pistol, and a custom 1911. Target shooting is one of my hobbies. I'm not super pro-gun to be honest, even being conservative. I'd gladly get rid of mine, IF EVERYONE ELSE DID. Until then, they stay.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1770 on: July 20, 2016, 11:43:35 PM »
Since dogs were brought up, I just want to say that if you have one, do NOT put up a "beware of dog" or "caution dog bites" type of sign on your fence.  If your dog ever bites someone the sign can be used as evidence that you knowingly had a dangerous animal and you can be held liable. 

While a dog can be an excellent deterrent to crime, they should never be trained to be your security system.  The stigma that certain breeds are "bad" is already prevalent enough.  Train your dogs to be respectful.  You wouldn't train your children to attack a stranger on sight.  The same should go for your dog.  There's no such thing as a bad dog, just a bad owner.

Interesting about the signs, but that makes sense. I've never used them myself. My dog would also easily be defeated by a burglar with a bag of treats (hell, the treats probably would not be necessary), but she is large and has an intimidating bark, which she aims at anyone she doesn't know who approaches the house (even if they have a bag of treats!). More than enough security value, from my perspective. Training a guard dog for a SFH seems excessive and at least as likely as a gun to lead to an unfortunate accident. Definitely not something I would recommend.

Yup just the look and bark of a dog is usually enough for most people.

I'd like to see data on this. Seems that the 850k dog bites that need medical attention each year would show that not enough people run from big scary dogs, or perhaps that dogs do not give enough 'warning' that they are about to bite as one thinks. And, since 850K injuries (requiring medical attention) is a higher rate than firearm injuries (in the USA), and that defensive uses of guns outnumber injuries, I think it could be argued one may be 'safer' with a gun than with a dog, from injury stand point. It's very difficult to argue that one is LESS safe with a gun than a dog, statistically speaking.

And of course I recognize, as was pointed out before, that owning a dog is a mostly emotional decision, but I question the argument that they're better for home protection when they not only cause more injuries but there is also almost no data on their defensive use.

To be fair, no one in this thread has suggested anything completely unsafe, like installing a pool.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1771 on: July 20, 2016, 11:54:43 PM »
I just find myself weighing two opposing pro-gun perspectives: it's so easy to buy illegal guns that criminals will have no problem getting one versus liberal media is exaggerating how easy it is for anyone to to buy illegal guns. I suspect the truth may be somewhere in the middle such that hardcore professional criminals may indeed have the connections to get guns, regardless of their legal status, while your low level street thugs and non-criminal mental cases would find it difficult to get a gun on the spur of the moment. I haven't done the research, but I would think most incidents of gun violence is performed by the latter group. Maybe I am delusional, but the idea that gun control will have NO impact on gun violence sounds equally implausible.

I imagine this is how people on the other side of the argument feel when they're told that there are so many gun deaths that no one should have one and also no one ever needs a gun for self-defense because gun deaths are so rare no one actually needs a firearm to defend against them.

But to your point (which I think you made well): Of course super strict legislation could have an impact upon gun rates. If laws were passed that anyone found to be in possession of a firearm would be boiled alive publicly, it would likely make some dent in the availability of street guns and perhaps even the frequency in which they were used.  The counter-point to that, as some other posters have argued, is that such a law would unduly burden law abiding citizens by completely removing their right to weapons while only have some effect upon criminals.  Between the extremes there is some place that works to both restrict firearms from criminals while allowing lawful citizens to own them - the vast majority of the United States seem to think that they've arrived close to that point, as shown by the lack of gun ban arguments and the loosening of gun laws across much of the nation.

Thus, ideas like firearm education programs required in all public schools is an idea that could be supported by not burdening law abiding people while also having some impact upon accidental firearm injuries.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1772 on: July 21, 2016, 12:18:37 AM »
Since dogs were brought up, I just want to say that if you have one, do NOT put up a "beware of dog" or "caution dog bites" type of sign on your fence.  If your dog ever bites someone the sign can be used as evidence that you knowingly had a dangerous animal and you can be held liable. 

While a dog can be an excellent deterrent to crime, they should never be trained to be your security system.  The stigma that certain breeds are "bad" is already prevalent enough.  Train your dogs to be respectful.  You wouldn't train your children to attack a stranger on sight.  The same should go for your dog.  There's no such thing as a bad dog, just a bad owner.

Interesting about the signs, but that makes sense. I've never used them myself. My dog would also easily be defeated by a burglar with a bag of treats (hell, the treats probably would not be necessary), but she is large and has an intimidating bark, which she aims at anyone she doesn't know who approaches the house (even if they have a bag of treats!). More than enough security value, from my perspective. Training a guard dog for a SFH seems excessive and at least as likely as a gun to lead to an unfortunate accident. Definitely not something I would recommend.

Yup just the look and bark of a dog is usually enough for most people.

I'd like to see data on this. Seems that the 850k dog bites that need medical attention each year would show that not enough people run from big scary dogs, or perhaps that dogs do not give enough 'warning' that they are about to bite as one thinks. And, since 850K injuries (requiring medical attention) is a higher rate than firearm injuries (in the USA), and that defensive uses of guns outnumber injuries, I think it could be argued one may be 'safer' with a gun than with a dog, from injury stand point. It's very difficult to argue that one is LESS safe with a gun than a dog, statistically speaking.

And of course I recognize, as was pointed out before, that owning a dog is a mostly emotional decision, but I question the argument that they're better for home protection when they not only cause more injuries but there is also almost no data on their defensive use.

To be fair, no one in this thread has suggested anything completely unsafe, like installing a pool.

Please. That is reductive reasoning and based on your other posts, I know you are smart enough to know that. But if we want to play that game, there is as little data on defensive gun use as on defensive dog use in a home invasion scenario (especially when you consider the preventative side of things), as far as I am aware. I am open to being educated on this point so please feel free to link sources that are more substantive than comparing injury rates, which is a meaningless statistic in this conversation. Further, there is plenty of data on the relative deadliness of guns vs/ dogs (hint, dog related fatalities of any kind whatsoever are almost 20 times less likely than accidental gun fatalities, not to mention intentional gun fatalities). I have no proof, I'll grant, but I would be pretty surprised if this didn't continue to hold true when it comes to dead children. Finally, while I fully admit this is not irrefutable logic, there are quite a few security experts who endorse dogs as among the most advantageous of home protection options. I can't seem to find many counter examples of police officers, etc., claiming that dogs are questionable and possibly dangerous options for home defense and if you really want to be safe you should have a gun instead.

Again, own a gun if you like, but it'll take better reasoning than what you've provided to convince me that that choice is less emotion-based than owning a dog for home defense (which most people do for reasons unrelated to security anyway). Also, all of this ignores the fact that being overly paranoid about home defense is irrational much of the time regardless of what you choose to do about it.

« Last Edit: July 21, 2016, 12:42:00 AM by Lagom »

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1773 on: July 21, 2016, 01:12:05 AM »
Please. That is reductive reasoning and based on your other posts, I know you are smart enough to know that. But if we want to play that game, there is as little data on defensive gun use as on defensive dog use, as far as I am aware (please feel free to link sources that are more substantive than comparing injury rates, which is a meaningless statistic in this conversation). Further, there is plenty of data on the relative deadliness of guns vs/ dogs (hint, dog related fatalities of any kind whatsoever are almost 20 times less likely than accidental gun fatalities, not to mention intentional gun fatalities). I have no proof, I'll grant, but I would be pretty surprised if this didn't continue to hold true when it comes to dead children. Finally, while I fully admit this is not irrefutable logic, there are quite a few security experts who endorse dogs as among the most advantageous of home protection options. I can't seem to find many counter examples of police officers, etc., claiming that dogs are questionable and possibly dangerous options for home defense and if you really want to be safe you should have a gun instead.

Again, own a gun if you like, but it'll take better reasoning than what you've provided to convince me that that choice is comparably emotion-based to owning a dog for home defense (which most people do for reasons unrelated to security anyway). Also, all of this ignores the fact that being overly paranoid about home defense is irrational much of the time regardless of what you choose to do about it.

You pay me too big of a compliment. But thank you.

A) There's little data on either subject. Arguably not enough to draw full conclusions either way, but there is more data on gun usage. However, the DOJ estimates 1.5 million Defensive Gun Uses each year:
Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms - DOJ, 1994

A collection of other studies show something between 800K and 2 million DGUs/year. The exact number in this case is rather unimportant as even the lower bounds are substantially higher than the approx. 100k injuries+deaths that occur from firearms each year.

Continued by CDC research:

“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies,”  -Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence Center for Disease Control.

B) Firearms kill more people (including children) each year than dogs. By a large amount. True. But your likelihood of being injured or killed by a firearm is much less than being maimed by a dog. So a calculated risk - the very small chance of a fatal injury by firearm, or a larger chance of a serious, but non fatal, injury by dog.  Obviously this is a judgement call and not really an 'either or' choice, but could weigh into the decision. For an actuarial basis, I clearly don't have those numbers, but I do believe insurance companies have numbers for dog ownership, especially some 'high risk' breeds. I've never heard of an insurance company charging higher accident rates for gun owners - again, not a perfect argument, but we could use insurance rates as a rough proxy to actuarial risk. They've decided dogs can factor into policy premiums; they have not yet decided simple gun ownership should. This to me is a fair argument that dog ownership is 'riskier' than gun ownership.

C) Home defense experts say all sorts of things. Some say shotguns are what you need, some say short-barreled rifles are better, still some others suggest that installing bars on your doors and windows trumps them all.  I'm not arguing that a dog is a poor choice for home defense. Far from it. I'm simply postulating that it is incorrect to say that it is better than a gun; the data, as shown above, doesn't support this. If one's goal is ONLY home security, then there are more effective means than a dog, or a firearm. And options with fewer downsides.

And you're quite right; out of the 40 million injuries suffered by Americans each year (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm) a very small amount of either are caused by dogs or firearms. Worrying about either to excess is a waste of time. And you are correct, part of this argument is flippant, as people own dogs and guns for reasons beyond just home security, and will own them despite the fact that they pose risks. The fact that they can serve this purpose is simply one 'pro' side of ownership, to offset some of the 'cons' that each has.

I truly believe once the facts and information and data is out there, a lot of 'fear' of guns can be rectified when they're directly compared to other things that people own without a second thought.  It's also useful sometimes to turn the arguments used against one object around on things that other's view as important to them; opposing viewpoints and exploring both sides of a discussion is healthy and helps differing sides find common ground and understand each other better.  I hope you didn't take my arguments personally Lagom.  I enjoy exploring all sides of an issue, even if most people in the discussion have made up their mind.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

robartsd

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 833
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1774 on: July 21, 2016, 09:28:52 AM »
I've never heard of an insurance company charging higher accident rates for gun owners - again, not a perfect argument, but we could use insurance rates as a rough proxy to actuarial risk. They've decided dogs can factor into policy premiums; they have not yet decided simple gun ownership should. This to me is a fair argument that dog ownership is 'riskier' than gun ownership.
What liability for gun injuries does the insurance company take on? It could be that most gun injuries are not covered, but most dog injuries are. A higher insurance rate for dog ownership does indicate that a dog is a poor choice for property protection (though not necessarily indicating a poor choice for personal protection).

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1775 on: July 21, 2016, 11:17:11 AM »
I didn't take it personally, thank you for the thoughtful response. Apologies if I was too flippant as well. It's a character flaw, I'm afraid.

First, I totally agree that making almost any decision to protect your house from invaders  (guns, dogs, moats, etc.) is going to be emotion-based. My original reason for jumping in to the thread was to point this out, in fact. Bringing up the dog was more a way to illustrate that there are options besides gun ownership that can effectively prevent a home invasion than to definitively declare that it is the best option. I happen to think it is, but I agree I can't prove that definitively.

That said, I can't really take information like insurance rates seriously in this conversation as they are considering too many factors beyond likely home-defense scenarios, and as robartsd mentioned there may be exclusions that partially explain it (although I have no idea if this is true). Now if the question is whether a gun or a dog is more likely to cause an unanticipated medical-related expense to someone, somewhere, sometime, I don't doubt it's a dog (although like with guns, that risk is substantially reduced when following responsible ownership principles). If an unexpected injury does occur, however, the gun related one is far more likely to be fatal. I would rather risk unlikely but possible injury, than even more unlikely but possible death, personally. 

Along the same lines, you are using national injury statistics to make a case about home defense. In aggregate, as a US citizen, I am more likely to be harmed by a dog than a gun, sure. But am I, or a friend or family member more likely to be seriously harmed (as in, potentially life-threatening) by my own dog in my own home than if I had a gun? Your data does not at all disprove my claim that a dog is a less risky and possibly more efficacious option. My claim is based on anecdotal information backed by some data, same as yours. But at the very least, my data tells me my dog is less likely to result in a person's death than if I owned a gun. For my own emotional needs, that is enough justification to favor the former. Plus dogs are more cuddly :)

Just my own perspective but I have no problem with people weighing the information they have differently. Either way, whether you own a dog or a gun or a laser shark, do us all a favor and make sure you are a responsible, conscientious owner. And for god's sake don't install a pool ;)

« Last Edit: July 21, 2016, 05:32:35 PM by Lagom »

Curbside Prophet

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 182
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1776 on: July 21, 2016, 05:28:12 PM »
Since dogs were brought up, I just want to say that if you have one, do NOT put up a "beware of dog" or "caution dog bites" type of sign on your fence.  If your dog ever bites someone the sign can be used as evidence that you knowingly had a dangerous animal and you can be held liable. 

While a dog can be an excellent deterrent to crime, they should never be trained to be your security system.  The stigma that certain breeds are "bad" is already prevalent enough.  Train your dogs to be respectful.  You wouldn't train your children to attack a stranger on sight.  The same should go for your dog.  There's no such thing as a bad dog, just a bad owner.

Interesting about the signs, but that makes sense. I've never used them myself. My dog would also easily be defeated by a burglar with a bag of treats (hell, the treats probably would not be necessary), but she is large and has an intimidating bark, which she aims at anyone she doesn't know who approaches the house (even if they have a bag of treats!). More than enough security value, from my perspective. Training a guard dog for a SFH seems excessive and at least as likely as a gun to lead to an unfortunate accident. Definitely not something I would recommend.

Yup just the look and bark of a dog is usually enough for most people.

I'd like to see data on this. Seems that the 850k dog bites that need medical attention each year would show that not enough people run from big scary dogs, or perhaps that dogs do not give enough 'warning' that they are about to bite as one thinks. And, since 850K injuries (requiring medical attention) is a higher rate than firearm injuries (in the USA), and that defensive uses of guns outnumber injuries, I think it could be argued one may be 'safer' with a gun than with a dog, from injury stand point. It's very difficult to argue that one is LESS safe with a gun than a dog, statistically speaking.

And of course I recognize, as was pointed out before, that owning a dog is a mostly emotional decision, but I question the argument that they're better for home protection when they not only cause more injuries but there is also almost no data on their defensive use.

To be fair, no one in this thread has suggested anything completely unsafe, like installing a pool.

Couple of things, the dog bite statistic is in aggregate and not attributed to bites that happen for reasons other than home defense.  An aggressive dog could get loose and bite someone, an owner could get bitten breaking up a dog fight, a dog could accidently bite during play, etc.  Typically dogs do give ample warning, the problem is usually people don't pick up on them. 

Second, in no way did I advocate a dog for home protection.  I said quite the opposite.  I said they can deter crime simply by their presence or bark but you should not own one for the purposes of defense.  Dogs, like humans, are pack oriented and giving a dog the role of protector means giving a dog the alpha role, which is going to cause problems.  A dog, just like a child, needs to know there are rules and boundaries.

As an owner of both dogs and firearms, I know that either can be misused.  It's not a case of which is better, it's a case of responsibility.  If you own a dog, you should be responsible enough to provide adequate training along with all the other responsibilities (shelter, food/water, exercise, affection etc.).  If you own a firearm, you should be responsible enough to understand the dangers and take precautions to mitigate them.  It's really two sides of the same coin.

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5179
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1777 on: July 21, 2016, 06:02:01 PM »
As an owner of both dogs and firearms, I know that either can be misused.  It's not a case of which is better, it's a case of responsibility.  If you own a dog, you should be responsible enough to provide adequate training along with all the other responsibilities (shelter, food/water, exercise, affection etc.).  If you own a firearm, you should be responsible enough to understand the dangers and take precautions to mitigate them.  It's really two sides of the same coin.

Generally the dog's job is to bark to notify that a stranger is coming.  That is a subordinate role, it is notifying its leader (you) that someone is coming.  The dog can be super friendly, it is the bark that matters.  I know someone who did not get robbed when no-one was home (lots of footprints in the snow and a basement window almost opened, so she knew someone was trying to break in) because her super sweet golden retriever was in the room above that window, and for sure he would have barked.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1778 on: July 21, 2016, 06:12:15 PM »
I didn't take it personally, thank you for the thoughtful response. Apologies if I was too flippant as well. It's a character flaw, I'm afraid.

No problem. I appreciate your thoughts on the topic.  Flippant is fine. In fact I maybe even prefer it. :D
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

dycker1978

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 589
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1779 on: July 22, 2016, 09:16:04 AM »
Well, I know where I have positioned myself in this discussion and have truly found this discussion fascinating.  As I have read and learnt more it has enlightened me to the other side of the discussion.  I still think that there is something that should be done, probably, in my opinion, education to try and lower/eliminate the amount of accidental deaths.

It has been established, by others that guns deaths total about 35000 people a year.  A majority of which are suicide.  This number may or may not change with different/more control in place, but it is not proven nor can it be with out further controls in place.

Now, I have been google searching and reading on this topic since the start of this thread.  Although 35000 lives are significant. I think that it in just a drop in the bucket when we look at deaths caused by preventable heart disease.  I read somewhere that between 6-700000 people die a year of heart disease.  Upwards of 60% of them may be caused almost exclusively by eating fast food, and food with no nutritional value. 

My point to bring this us is only that some seem to want to spend millions of dollars to implement gun control to help reduce the 35000 lives lost here, there does not seem to be any conversation any where to do something to control the 400000 lives lost to eating poorly.

The more I look at this issue the more it seems to be politicians making this more of an issue than it needs to be in order to place "smoke in mirrors" so the people are divided and so that they do not see what they are truly doing.

Just my two cents.

Making Cookies

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1652
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1780 on: July 22, 2016, 09:31:43 AM »
Generally the dog's job is to bark to notify that a stranger is coming.  That is a subordinate role, it is notifying its leader (you) that someone is coming.  The dog can be super friendly, it is the bark that matters.  I know someone who did not get robbed when no-one was home (lots of footprints in the snow and a basement window almost opened, so she knew someone was trying to break in) because her super sweet golden retriever was in the room above that window, and for sure he would have barked.

We have a dog with a lethal bark. Not much bite in that dog however. Makes her a perfect family dog.

spartana

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3599
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1781 on: July 22, 2016, 09:42:14 AM »
Well, I know where I have positioned myself in this discussion and have truly found this discussion fascinating.  As I have read and learnt more it has enlightened me to the other side of the discussion.  I still think that there is something that should be done, probably, in my opinion, education to try and lower/eliminate the amount of accidental deaths.

It has been established, by others that guns deaths total about 35000 people a year.  A majority of which are suicide.  This number may or may not change with different/more control in place, but it is not proven nor can it be with out further controls in place.

Now, I have been google searching and reading on this topic since the start of this thread.  Although 35000 lives are significant. I think that it in just a drop in the bucket when we look at deaths caused by preventable heart disease.  I read somewhere that between 6-700000 people die a year of heart disease.  Upwards of 60% of them may be caused almost exclusively by eating fast food, and food with no nutritional value. 

My point to bring this us is only that some seem to want to spend millions of dollars to implement gun control to help reduce the 35000 lives lost here, there does not seem to be any conversation any where to do something to control the 400000 lives lost to eating poorly.

The more I look at this issue the more it seems to be politicians making this more of an issue than it needs to be in order to place "smoke in mirrors" so the people are divided and so that they do not see what they are truly doing.

Just my two cents.
Well the former mayor of NYC did implement the "no soda over 16 ounce" rule. Like people aren't just going to refill up their cups.

The problem I see is that when an accident happens with a firearm (approx 700/year according to the CDC) or even suicide or crime, the very first reaction is to try to change the "tool" used  - ban the gun or change the ability to get the gun etc... They rarely focus on finding the reasons behind the accident, suicide or crime. That doesn't happen in.other situations. We look to change the tool and dont look enough into changing the peoples behavior - be that tood or guns or vehicles  or pools.

If there are a high number of accidental drownings we don't focus on how to correct or eliminate the pool, we focus on the people who use the pool. Did they act in responsible ways. Did they take safety precautions. Did they know how to swim. Was the pool gated. Were they horsing around. Were they negligent. These are probably all the same things that cause firearms accidents.

 This can be said for anything. Even terrorist activities or mental illness that causes violence. When people are run down by a car or bombed, or a plane is put thru a building or a pilot us depressed and crashs the plane full of people on purpose, we put the blame on the person/people and look for a solution to change their behavior. If it happens with a gun we JUST focus on the gun and almost nothing else. Almist exclusively focusing on the tool used rather than on the root cause takes away a huge opportunity to make real changes. Bloombergs soda downsizing didn't change anything because he focused on trying to fix the tool of obesity in a very very ineffective way rather than the root cause of obseity, heart disease and death.
Retired at 42 to play!

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1782 on: July 22, 2016, 09:47:41 AM »
While I agree that strict gun control is unlikely to produce the results proponents think it will, the pool comparison also correlates with the reasoning of folks like myself. Even if I am a responsible pool owner, having one on my property increases the chance of a fatal accident, and thus I choose not to install a pool.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1783 on: July 22, 2016, 12:52:32 PM »
While I agree that strict gun control is unlikely to produce the results proponents think it will, the pool comparison also correlates with the reasoning of folks like myself. Even if I am a responsible pool owner, having one on my property increases the chance of a fatal accident, and thus I choose not to install a pool.

And that's a perfectly acceptable choice to make for yourself. The benefits of owning a pool do not outweigh the risk you are comfortable with.

I don't have a pool either, but not because of the risk. I would love one if money was not an issue, because I love to swim for exercise and I love hanging out in/around pools just for fun.

The same thing applies to firearms. Do the benefits outweigh the risks, for you, in your particular situation? Do you want a gun? If so, get one. If not, don't. The problem is when someone else tries to make that decision for me. Not cool.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1784 on: July 22, 2016, 01:31:52 PM »
While I agree that strict gun control is unlikely to produce the results proponents think it will, the pool comparison also correlates with the reasoning of folks like myself. Even if I am a responsible pool owner, having one on my property increases the chance of a fatal accident, and thus I choose not to install a pool.

And that's a perfectly acceptable choice to make for yourself. The benefits of owning a pool do not outweigh the risk you are comfortable with.

I don't have a pool either, but not because of the risk. I would love one if money was not an issue, because I love to swim for exercise and I love hanging out in/around pools just for fun.

The same thing applies to firearms. Do the benefits outweigh the risks, for you, in your particular situation? Do you want a gun? If so, get one. If not, don't. The problem is when someone else tries to make that decision for me. Not cool.

+1
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1785 on: July 22, 2016, 03:41:51 PM »
While I agree that strict gun control is unlikely to produce the results proponents think it will, the pool comparison also correlates with the reasoning of folks like myself. Even if I am a responsible pool owner, having one on my property increases the chance of a fatal accident, and thus I choose not to install a pool.

And that's a perfectly acceptable choice to make for yourself. The benefits of owning a pool do not outweigh the risk you are comfortable with.

I don't have a pool either, but not because of the risk. I would love one if money was not an issue, because I love to swim for exercise and I love hanging out in/around pools just for fun.

The same thing applies to firearms. Do the benefits outweigh the risks, for you, in your particular situation? Do you want a gun? If so, get one. If not, don't. The problem is when someone else tries to make that decision for me. Not cool.

+1

Agreed! Yay, common ground! I still think it's healthy to debate just how high the relative risks are, though, as I would wager many justify away their decision by assuming the drawbacks won't apply to them.

Incidentally, I would actually love to own a pool, but am too uncomfortable with the prospect while my children are young, especially since they like to play by themselves in the yard sometimes. If the finances work, we very well might consider installing one later on though. :)

Tom Bri

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 514
  • Location: Small Town, Flyover Country
  • More just cheap, than Mustachian
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1786 on: July 22, 2016, 09:25:46 PM »
Since dogs were brought up, I just want to say that if you have one, do NOT put up a "beware of dog" or "caution dog bites" type of sign on your fence.  If your dog ever bites someone the sign can be used as evidence that you knowingly had a dangerous animal and you can be held liable. 

While a dog can be an excellent deterrent to crime, they should never be trained to be your security system.  The stigma that certain breeds are "bad" is already prevalent enough.  Train your dogs to be respectful.  You wouldn't train your children to attack a stranger on sight.  The same should go for your dog.  There's no such thing as a bad dog, just a bad owner.

Interesting about the signs, but that makes sense. I've never used them myself. My dog would also easily be defeated by a burglar with a bag of treats (hell, the treats probably would not be necessary), but she is large and has an intimidating bark, which she aims at anyone she doesn't know who approaches the house (even if they have a bag of treats!). More than enough security value, from my perspective. Training a guard dog for a SFH seems excessive and at least as likely as a gun to lead to an unfortunate accident. Definitely not something I would recommend.

Yup just the look and bark of a dog is usually enough for most people.

I'd like to see data on this. Seems that the 850k dog bites that need medical attention each year would show that not enough people run from big scary dogs, or perhaps that dogs do not give enough 'warning' that they are about to bite as one thinks. And, since 850K injuries (requiring medical attention) is a higher rate than firearm injuries (in the USA), and that defensive uses of guns outnumber injuries, I think it could be argued one may be 'safer' with a gun than with a dog, from injury stand point. It's very difficult to argue that one is LESS safe with a gun than a dog, statistically speaking.

And of course I recognize, as was pointed out before, that owning a dog is a mostly emotional decision, but I question the argument that they're better for home protection when they not only cause more injuries but there is also almost no data on their defensive use.

To be fair, no one in this thread has suggested anything completely unsafe, like installing a pool.

Please. That is reductive reasoning and based on your other posts, I know you are smart enough to know that. But if we want to play that game, there is as little data on defensive gun use as on defensive dog use in a home invasion scenario (especially when you consider the preventative side of things), as far as I am aware. I am open to being educated on this point so please feel free to link sources that are more substantive than comparing injury rates, which is a meaningless statistic in this conversation. Further, there is plenty of data on the relative deadliness of guns vs/ dogs (hint, dog related fatalities of any kind whatsoever are almost 20 times less likely than accidental gun fatalities, not to mention intentional gun fatalities). I have no proof, I'll grant, but I would be pretty surprised if this didn't continue to hold true when it comes to dead children. Finally, while I fully admit this is not irrefutable logic, there are quite a few security experts who endorse dogs as among the most advantageous of home protection options. I can't seem to find many counter examples of police officers, etc., claiming that dogs are questionable and possibly dangerous options for home defense and if you really want to be safe you should have a gun instead.

Again, own a gun if you like, but it'll take better reasoning than what you've provided to convince me that that choice is less emotion-based than owning a dog for home defense (which most people do for reasons unrelated to security anyway). Also, all of this ignores the fact that being overly paranoid about home defense is irrational much of the time regardless of what you choose to do about it.

Google tells me there are around 79,000,000 dogs in the US, and 270,000,000 guns.

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1787 on: July 22, 2016, 09:59:47 PM »
Since dogs were brought up, I just want to say that if you have one, do NOT put up a "beware of dog" or "caution dog bites" type of sign on your fence.  If your dog ever bites someone the sign can be used as evidence that you knowingly had a dangerous animal and you can be held liable. 

While a dog can be an excellent deterrent to crime, they should never be trained to be your security system.  The stigma that certain breeds are "bad" is already prevalent enough.  Train your dogs to be respectful.  You wouldn't train your children to attack a stranger on sight.  The same should go for your dog.  There's no such thing as a bad dog, just a bad owner.

Interesting about the signs, but that makes sense. I've never used them myself. My dog would also easily be defeated by a burglar with a bag of treats (hell, the treats probably would not be necessary), but she is large and has an intimidating bark, which she aims at anyone she doesn't know who approaches the house (even if they have a bag of treats!). More than enough security value, from my perspective. Training a guard dog for a SFH seems excessive and at least as likely as a gun to lead to an unfortunate accident. Definitely not something I would recommend.

Yup just the look and bark of a dog is usually enough for most people.

I'd like to see data on this. Seems that the 850k dog bites that need medical attention each year would show that not enough people run from big scary dogs, or perhaps that dogs do not give enough 'warning' that they are about to bite as one thinks. And, since 850K injuries (requiring medical attention) is a higher rate than firearm injuries (in the USA), and that defensive uses of guns outnumber injuries, I think it could be argued one may be 'safer' with a gun than with a dog, from injury stand point. It's very difficult to argue that one is LESS safe with a gun than a dog, statistically speaking.

And of course I recognize, as was pointed out before, that owning a dog is a mostly emotional decision, but I question the argument that they're better for home protection when they not only cause more injuries but there is also almost no data on their defensive use.

To be fair, no one in this thread has suggested anything completely unsafe, like installing a pool.

Please. That is reductive reasoning and based on your other posts, I know you are smart enough to know that. But if we want to play that game, there is as little data on defensive gun use as on defensive dog use in a home invasion scenario (especially when you consider the preventative side of things), as far as I am aware. I am open to being educated on this point so please feel free to link sources that are more substantive than comparing injury rates, which is a meaningless statistic in this conversation. Further, there is plenty of data on the relative deadliness of guns vs/ dogs (hint, dog related fatalities of any kind whatsoever are almost 20 times less likely than accidental gun fatalities, not to mention intentional gun fatalities). I have no proof, I'll grant, but I would be pretty surprised if this didn't continue to hold true when it comes to dead children. Finally, while I fully admit this is not irrefutable logic, there are quite a few security experts who endorse dogs as among the most advantageous of home protection options. I can't seem to find many counter examples of police officers, etc., claiming that dogs are questionable and possibly dangerous options for home defense and if you really want to be safe you should have a gun instead.

Again, own a gun if you like, but it'll take better reasoning than what you've provided to convince me that that choice is less emotion-based than owning a dog for home defense (which most people do for reasons unrelated to security anyway). Also, all of this ignores the fact that being overly paranoid about home defense is irrational much of the time regardless of what you choose to do about it.

Google tells me there are around 79,000,000 dogs in the US, and 270,000,000 guns.

Common sense tells me you didn't read much of what has been written. But if you need me to explain why your implied point is nonsensical, I am happy to do so.

Tom Bri

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 514
  • Location: Small Town, Flyover Country
  • More just cheap, than Mustachian
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1788 on: July 23, 2016, 12:09:11 AM »
Since dogs were brought up, I just want to say that if you have one, do NOT put up a "beware of dog" or "caution dog bites" type of sign on your fence.  If your dog ever bites someone the sign can be used as evidence that you knowingly had a dangerous animal and you can be held liable. 

While a dog can be an excellent deterrent to crime, they should never be trained to be your security system.  The stigma that certain breeds are "bad" is already prevalent enough.  Train your dogs to be respectful.  You wouldn't train your children to attack a stranger on sight.  The same should go for your dog.  There's no such thing as a bad dog, just a bad owner.

Interesting about the signs, but that makes sense. I've never used them myself. My dog would also easily be defeated by a burglar with a bag of treats (hell, the treats probably would not be necessary), but she is large and has an intimidating bark, which she aims at anyone she doesn't know who approaches the house (even if they have a bag of treats!). More than enough security value, from my perspective. Training a guard dog for a SFH seems excessive and at least as likely as a gun to lead to an unfortunate accident. Definitely not something I would recommend.

Yup just the look and bark of a dog is usually enough for most people.

I'd like to see data on this. Seems that the 850k dog bites that need medical attention each year would show that not enough people run from big scary dogs, or perhaps that dogs do not give enough 'warning' that they are about to bite as one thinks. And, since 850K injuries (requiring medical attention) is a higher rate than firearm injuries (in the USA), and that defensive uses of guns outnumber injuries, I think it could be argued one may be 'safer' with a gun than with a dog, from injury stand point. It's very difficult to argue that one is LESS safe with a gun than a dog, statistically speaking.

And of course I recognize, as was pointed out before, that owning a dog is a mostly emotional decision, but I question the argument that they're better for home protection when they not only cause more injuries but there is also almost no data on their defensive use.

To be fair, no one in this thread has suggested anything completely unsafe, like installing a pool.

Please. That is reductive reasoning and based on your other posts, I know you are smart enough to know that. But if we want to play that game, there is as little data on defensive gun use as on defensive dog use in a home invasion scenario (especially when you consider the preventative side of things), as far as I am aware. I am open to being educated on this point so please feel free to link sources that are more substantive than comparing injury rates, which is a meaningless statistic in this conversation. Further, there is plenty of data on the relative deadliness of guns vs/ dogs (hint, dog related fatalities of any kind whatsoever are almost 20 times less likely than accidental gun fatalities, not to mention intentional gun fatalities). I have no proof, I'll grant, but I would be pretty surprised if this didn't continue to hold true when it comes to dead children. Finally, while I fully admit this is not irrefutable logic, there are quite a few security experts who endorse dogs as among the most advantageous of home protection options. I can't seem to find many counter examples of police officers, etc., claiming that dogs are questionable and possibly dangerous options for home defense and if you really want to be safe you should have a gun instead.

Again, own a gun if you like, but it'll take better reasoning than what you've provided to convince me that that choice is less emotion-based than owning a dog for home defense (which most people do for reasons unrelated to security anyway). Also, all of this ignores the fact that being overly paranoid about home defense is irrational much of the time regardless of what you choose to do about it.

Google tells me there are around 79,000,000 dogs in the US, and 270,000,000 guns.

Common sense tells me you didn't read much of what has been written. But if you need me to explain why your implied point is nonsensical, I am happy to do so.

My only point being, that it is useful in comparing the dangers of different things, to know how common they are. Pools have been brought up frequently in this thread, with no insults thrown. Pools are a lot less common than dogs, and are a common cause of accidental death. Please, enlighten me as to why this is nonsensical.

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1789 on: July 23, 2016, 12:24:11 AM »
The reason it's nonsensical is that absolute numbers are not meaningful when analyzing specific situations. You can't throw out a statistic like the number of guns vs. dogs owned in general without qualifying those numbers by the number of each per household in which they reside, number of serious injuries occurring in said households (and under what circumstances), etc.

Tom Bri

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 514
  • Location: Small Town, Flyover Country
  • More just cheap, than Mustachian
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1790 on: July 23, 2016, 01:17:26 AM »
The reason it's nonsensical is that absolute numbers are not meaningful when analyzing specific situations. You can't throw out a statistic like the number of guns vs. dogs owned in general without qualifying those numbers by the number of each per household in which they reside, number of serious injuries occurring in said households (and under what circumstances), etc.

Really? I need to calculate the number of dogs/household and compare it to the number of guns/household? Or should I break it down even further? Perhaps state-by-state? With outliers, too, I suppose, along with size/breed of most popular dogs compared to frequency of serious vs minor biting? Just how much detail do you need?


mathjak107

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 558
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1791 on: July 23, 2016, 04:52:05 AM »
Gun prices aren't the largest deterrent. It's the ongoing cost of ammo and range fees that will sink your budget. They make a $8 bucket of golf balls that look cheap in comparison.

No cost if you don't use them.

my wife and i pay 375 bucks each for our nyc permits every 3 years . they used to require a range membership too but dropped that requirement .

plus i pay 185.00 dollars i think it is every 5 years for my rifle shot gun permits .

we are avid target shooters and hunters . just the hobby for living in nyc   lol

a dog , an alarm and a firearm are each pieces of a personal protection plan and individually are not a total solution . each piece of the plan plays a vital roll .
« Last Edit: July 23, 2016, 04:55:11 AM by mathjak107 »

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1792 on: July 23, 2016, 10:41:20 AM »
The reason it's nonsensical is that absolute numbers are not meaningful when analyzing specific situations. You can't throw out a statistic like the number of guns vs. dogs owned in general without qualifying those numbers by the number of each per household in which they reside, number of serious injuries occurring in said households (and under what circumstances), etc.

Really? I need to calculate the number of dogs/household and compare it to the number of guns/household? Or should I break it down even further? Perhaps state-by-state? With outliers, too, I suppose, along with size/breed of most popular dogs compared to frequency of serious vs minor biting? Just how much detail do you need?

A hell of a lot more than you provided, which doesn't tell us anything whatsoever. There is enough discussion that explains why above. I don't really feel like going into it even more at this point, so feel free to just think that I'm wrong.

Tom Bri

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 514
  • Location: Small Town, Flyover Country
  • More just cheap, than Mustachian
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1793 on: July 23, 2016, 05:47:45 PM »
The reason it's nonsensical is that absolute numbers are not meaningful when analyzing specific situations. You can't throw out a statistic like the number of guns vs. dogs owned in general without qualifying those numbers by the number of each per household in which they reside, number of serious injuries occurring in said households (and under what circumstances), etc.

Really? I need to calculate the number of dogs/household and compare it to the number of guns/household? Or should I break it down even further? Perhaps state-by-state? With outliers, too, I suppose, along with size/breed of most popular dogs compared to frequency of serious vs minor biting? Just how much detail do you need?

A hell of a lot more than you provided, which doesn't tell us anything whatsoever. There is enough discussion that explains why above. I don't really feel like going into it even more at this point, so feel free to just think that I'm wrong.

I don't think you are wrong. All that is interesting info. But in context I just think you are being a bit disingenuous.
This is a meandering discussion, not a formal treatise on violence. We had wandered into a discussion of the value/risk of dogs vs guns. I added one data point. Anyone following along would recall the number of serious injuries caused by dogs, just a few posts above mine, and could do a quick and dirty risk/reward calculation in their heads.
Obviously, since you want me to spell it out, both guns and dogs add plenty of value, and offer some serious added risk as well. For me, both guns and dogs are a plus. For others, both or either might be a minus. Since you asked for it, below are a few interesting links. There are three times more guns than dogs in the US, but dogs resulted in more than three times as many emergency room visits as guns. On the flip side, dogs are responsible for only a few hundred deaths each year, while gunshot wounds kill far more, about 30,000, 60% of those being suicides.

More info. This is old, from the 1990s, but gun related violence has declined substantially since then, so this offers a top-end estimate.: http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/6/4/268.full

...Fatal and non-fatal firearm related injuries associated with gunshot wounds (GSWs) have been extensively described in the medical literature. Since 1993, both fatal and non-fatal firearm related GSW injury rates have declined substantially, possibly due to improved economic conditions, the aging of the population, and changes in legislation, sentencing, and law enforcement practices.1–3 However, GSWs remain an important public health problem. They were the second leading cause of injury death (32 400 deaths) behind motor vehicle traffic related death (42 500 deaths) in 1997.4 In addition, GSWs contributed an estimated 64 200 non-fatal injuries treated in hospital emergency departments in the United States in 1997, about half of which required hospitalization.3,4 Although suicides and homicides account for over 96% of all gunshot related deaths, about 20% of gunshot related injuries treated in hospital emergency departments in the United States are unintentional....

Re dog bite injuries: http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-study-emergency-visits-involving-dog-bites-ahrq-2008.php

In 2008, about 316,200 ED visits involved a dog bite, a rate of 103.9 visits per 100,000 population. Approximately 9,500 hospital stays involved a dog bite, a rate of 3.1 stays per 100,000 population.

libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1090
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1794 on: August 16, 2016, 01:59:21 AM »
Let's get this thread back on track.

The topic is "Firearms in the home."

I'll start.  I have a Mossberg shotgun for no reason other than home defense (I don't shoot skeet or hunt).  A good hall sweeper to remove any drug addled idiot who decides to make a 2 AM break in. 

I have an AR-15 for for target shooting and as a secondary home defense weapon (as an ex-military guy, I really like this rifle). 

My wife has a small 9 mm semi-auto pistol for personal carry.

I have an ancient basic black police .38 revolver I inherited from an uncle who was an NYC detective decades ago.  Probably dates to the 1930s or 40s.  I rarely fire it.  But it still shoots well.  I keep it near the front door.  I should probably take it out and fire it more often.

And an old bolt action .22 LR Remington for plinking.  It was my first gun.  I've had this thing for more than 35 years and it still works fine as long as I keep it clean and well oiled.  I've probably put thousands of rounds through it.  I just keep it locked up in the back of my truck (unloaded) most of the time.

So, what do you all have?


Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1795 on: August 16, 2016, 02:08:42 PM »
Sadly, lost all of mine in a tragic boating accident...
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2579
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1796 on: August 18, 2016, 07:51:08 AM »
I don't discuss what firearms I own with people on the internet.  The only one I'll admit to owning is an old Remington 870 12ga.  Uncle Joe Biden said I was allowed to have that one, so I'll admit to it.  Beyond that, no one's business.
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1797 on: August 18, 2016, 03:02:47 PM »
I don't discuss what firearms I own with people on the internet.  The only one I'll admit to owning is an old Remington 870 12ga.  Uncle Joe Biden said I was allowed to have that one, so I'll admit to it.  Beyond that, no one's business.

Might have been you I heard firing "warning shots" late a night..
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

spartana

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3599
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1798 on: August 18, 2016, 06:09:03 PM »
I have one of each of the basic 4 food...er...firearms groups - rifle, shotgun, pistol, revolver. Well 5 if you count the mini crossbow. At my house though there are many more because my sister lives here and works armed security for a defense contractor and owns many.
Retired at 42 to play!

mrpercentage

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1236
  • Location: PHX, AZ
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1799 on: August 18, 2016, 06:21:53 PM »
Glock 19, S&W 38, AS 22 mag, Butler 22, Ben Person 50# recurve, atlatl with 5 darts (spears), a mace fogger, a trusty sledge hammer, and a shotput

Im seriously thinking of selling all the guns though. My shotput could take care of any threat. Catch this
absolute truth... prison guard that has seen shanks does not makes 45k a year managing bullshit tech that was outsourced for what?.... cheaper tech and less taxes... probably