Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 436024 times)

Drifterrider

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1113
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1900 on: November 25, 2016, 08:41:08 AM »
I still want a Rambo gun.

I'm not sure what you are referring to, but American citizens with clean criminal histories can almost certainly own it.

A Rambo gun is one that never jams, never needs cleaning and never runs out of ammo.   AND, always hits the target.

greaper007

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1130
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1901 on: December 01, 2016, 12:15:31 PM »
I think a Rambo gun is an M60, if I'm not mistaken.    If so, that falls under the 1986 machine gun laws.    I imagine that if you jump through the ATF loops there's probably one for sale in the $250k range...

Malum Prohibitum

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 666
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1902 on: December 01, 2016, 12:28:08 PM »
I think a Rambo gun is an M60, if I'm not mistaken.    If so, that falls under the 1986 machine gun laws.    I imagine that if you jump through the ATF loops there's probably one for sale in the $250k range...
  Saw a transferable on sub guns classified ads this month for $36,500.

UPDATE - It's still there if you want one.  The other three that were listed have already sold.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2016, 12:35:25 PM by Malum Prohibitum »

Malum Prohibitum

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 666
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1903 on: December 01, 2016, 12:34:40 PM »
It's a cultural thing. In the US, you get so bombarded with these kinds of messages (we are a very fear-based society) that people spend a ton of time worrying about being victims of crime. If you're breathing that air all of the time, some people have a hard time thinking critically about it.

I don't worry about it anymore than I worry too much about car collisions, but I still wear my seatbelt when I drive.

Having been a police officer for more than a decade before moving on to other things may have skewed my viewpoint in the same way that you say "bombarded messages" does, but I find it better to be prepared than not.

While a gun was an absolute necessity for survival in my prior job, I found myself for many years afterward answering people who inquired whether I needed it since then with a "no."  I even arrested a burglar without pulling it and held him for the police.  Then, a year ago, my wife and I were set upon by two armed robbers, at night but in a well lit area of a city we were visiting, an area that "felt" safe.  I was carrying a gun, but not visibly.

I never got a chance to use it.  As they realized I was armed and I was swiftly putting it to use, they fled.

I am thankful that I did not give up on my habit of daily arming myself, just for that one moment in time.  It may happen again, or it may never happen again, but one cannot really predict with any success whether it will or, if so, when.  I keep myself armed and at peace with all men so far as it is within my power to do so.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1904 on: December 01, 2016, 12:40:43 PM »
I think a Rambo gun is an M60, if I'm not mistaken.    If so, that falls under the 1986 machine gun laws.    I imagine that if you jump through the ATF loops there's probably one for sale in the $250k range...

In the service, I was taught how to fire the M60 by a huge black Marine.  He told us to hold down the trigger, yell "Die white boy die!" and release, then repeat.  That kept the barrel from melting.  I'm white, I found it very funny :)
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Kriegsspiel

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1051
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1905 on: December 01, 2016, 11:30:03 PM »
That looks like a .50.

A wildly appropriate household weapon for the discerning lady.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1906 on: December 02, 2016, 04:05:34 AM »
That looks like a .50.

A wildly appropriate household weapon for the discerning lady.

You can truly tell the measure of a person by the machine guns they keep. :D
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Malum Prohibitum

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 666
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1907 on: December 02, 2016, 09:48:39 AM »
That looks like a .50.

A wildly appropriate household weapon for the discerning lady.
Yeah a .50 one of 2 we had on that smallish boat but had 60s at other smaller boats so...Rambo Guns!  Just something to keep in the purse ;-). Was doing a show for civilians and they made me dress up that day.  I'm pretty sure those are illegal to own in the US (correct me if I'm wrong) but I get the impression that most people outside the US really think we are walking around with full auto machine guns to go to the store.
  They are not illegal to own in the US, provided they were registered as transferable prior to May of 1986, and you pay the $200 transfer tax when purchasing.

Here:  http://www.titleii.com/bardwell/nfa_faqhtml.html

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1908 on: December 02, 2016, 10:26:47 AM »
That looks like a .50.

A wildly appropriate household weapon for the discerning lady.
Yeah a .50 one of 2 we had on that smallish boat but had 60s at other smaller boats so...Rambo Guns!  Just something to keep in the purse ;-). Was doing a show for civilians and they made me dress up that day.  I'm pretty sure those are illegal to own in the US (correct me if I'm wrong) but I get the impression that most people outside the US really think we are walking around with full auto machine guns to go to the store.
  They are not illegal to own in the US, provided they were registered as transferable prior to May of 1986, and you pay the $200 transfer tax when purchasing.

Here:  http://www.titleii.com/bardwell/nfa_faqhtml.html

And they cost a fortune AND they burn through $$$$$$$ ammo faster than you can believe.  500-650 rounds per minute at, what, $.50/rd?
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Malum Prohibitum

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 666
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1909 on: December 02, 2016, 12:45:26 PM »
I used to own a MAC 11 that was 1200 rpm.  That's 20 a second.  Ammunition costs added up quickly.

The sky high price on the actual guns is a function of supply and demand.  Federal law limited the supply to firearms registered in May of 1986, and the demand continues to rise.  Simple economics.

zolotiyeruki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2154
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1910 on: December 03, 2016, 07:39:14 PM »
I didn't know that. Guess I assumed all full auto and especially machine guns were banned by the feds. But I'm in Calif so am more familiar with firearm laws here (and we just passed some new restriction) compared to other states or feds. Now the Canadians REALLY have something to worry about ;-). Not that the average US citizen is likely to own something like that, especially for home protection,  unless its mounted to the turret on your castle ;-).
Yeah, individual states regulate guns more or less.  For example, Illinois has outlawed anything that shoots .50BMG, along with silencers and full auto, even though all of those are legal on a federal level.

...because apparently there's a huge crime wave involving those three things in the states where they're legal. :rolleyes:  /s

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1911 on: December 04, 2016, 03:01:50 AM »
In Europe, which has far fewer gun crimes, silencers can be bought over the counter. We need laws more in line with other  developed countries!
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4340
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1912 on: January 12, 2017, 06:39:28 AM »
In Europe, which has far fewer gun crimes, silencers can be bought over the counter. We need laws more in line with other  developed countries!
I think that would be fine, IF we do things like require training and responsibility for your weapon.  AKA you need to keep control of it at all times and are responsible (jail time) if you do not. 

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1913 on: January 12, 2017, 08:02:55 AM »
In Europe, which has far fewer gun crimes, silencers can be bought over the counter. We need laws more in line with other  developed countries!
I think that would be fine, IF we do things like require training and responsibility for your weapon.  AKA you need to keep control of it at all times and are responsible (jail time) if you do not.

What does that mean to you?  I mean, I'm at work right now, so all my guns are at home all lonely with no one there, am I keeping control of them or not? 

Seriously, if you want to have a discussion about this, by all means, tell us how you define that, and we can discuss whether that makes any sense or not.  Let's face it, the "more gun regulation" crowd has a pretty vivid track record of being long on broad ideas and extremely incompetent when it comes to how that jives with how guns actually function.  Shoulder thing that goes up and all that.
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2410
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1914 on: January 12, 2017, 08:45:01 AM »
In Europe, which has far fewer gun crimes, silencers can be bought over the counter. We need laws more in line with other  developed countries!
I think that would be fine, IF we do things like require training and responsibility for your weapon.  AKA you need to keep control of it at all times and are responsible (jail time) if you do not.

What does that mean to you?  I mean, I'm at work right now, so all my guns are at home all lonely with no one there, am I keeping control of them or not? 

Seriously, if you want to have a discussion about this, by all means, tell us how you define that, and we can discuss whether that makes any sense or not.  Let's face it, the "more gun regulation" crowd has a pretty vivid track record of being long on broad ideas and extremely incompetent when it comes to how that jives with how guns actually function.  Shoulder thing that goes up and all that.

If they're locked up, you are. That's not so hard to figure out, is it?
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Tasty Pinecones

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 762
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1915 on: January 12, 2017, 08:54:50 AM »
I just imagined a burglar kicking open the front door only to find a middle aged guy in his undies laying behind a .60 cal machine on a tripod pointed at the burglar.

Surely the burglar would wet himself?

The police did a mass phone call last night here b/c there was a home invasion / elderly kidnapping. Victim was let go after a short time but the gun toting door basher is still on the loose this morning.

This is significant b/c things like that never happen here.

Drugs here? Yep. Theft here? Yep. Violent crime - very rarely unless the victim and perp were feuding about something.

I still want a gun or guns for those minutes it takes for the police to arrive at my house. We're not paranoid. We've never been victims of crime. I feel though that we are being realistic about it though. 

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1916 on: January 12, 2017, 09:18:05 AM »
In Europe, which has far fewer gun crimes, silencers can be bought over the counter. We need laws more in line with other  developed countries!
I think that would be fine, IF we do things like require training and responsibility for your weapon.  AKA you need to keep control of it at all times and are responsible (jail time) if you do not.

What does that mean to you?  I mean, I'm at work right now, so all my guns are at home all lonely with no one there, am I keeping control of them or not? 

Seriously, if you want to have a discussion about this, by all means, tell us how you define that, and we can discuss whether that makes any sense or not.  Let's face it, the "more gun regulation" crowd has a pretty vivid track record of being long on broad ideas and extremely incompetent when it comes to how that jives with how guns actually function.  Shoulder thing that goes up and all that.

If they're locked up, you are. That's not so hard to figure out, is it?

I don't know.  They're locked in my house.  They're not locked up more than that.  I'm guessing that doesn't meet your sniff test, but I'm also guessing you'll have a hard time explaining why.
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4340
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1917 on: January 12, 2017, 09:21:20 AM »
In Europe, which has far fewer gun crimes, silencers can be bought over the counter. We need laws more in line with other  developed countries!
I think that would be fine, IF we do things like require training and responsibility for your weapon.  AKA you need to keep control of it at all times and are responsible (jail time) if you do not.

What does that mean to you?  I mean, I'm at work right now, so all my guns are at home all lonely with no one there, am I keeping control of them or not? 

Seriously, if you want to have a discussion about this, by all means, tell us how you define that, and we can discuss whether that makes any sense or not.  Let's face it, the "more gun regulation" crowd has a pretty vivid track record of being long on broad ideas and extremely incompetent when it comes to how that jives with how guns actually function.  Shoulder thing that goes up and all that.

If they're locked up, you are. That's not so hard to figure out, is it?

I don't know.  They're locked in my house.  They're not locked up more than that.  I'm guessing that doesn't meet your sniff test, but I'm also guessing you'll have a hard time explaining why.
I can explain exactly why.  In high school one of my friends had his house broken into and his guns stolen.  If you are not directly controlling them they need to be locked so someone cannot get them or you need to be liable for the damage they cause. 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk


Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2410
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1918 on: January 12, 2017, 09:22:14 AM »
In Europe, which has far fewer gun crimes, silencers can be bought over the counter. We need laws more in line with other  developed countries!
I think that would be fine, IF we do things like require training and responsibility for your weapon.  AKA you need to keep control of it at all times and are responsible (jail time) if you do not.

What does that mean to you?  I mean, I'm at work right now, so all my guns are at home all lonely with no one there, am I keeping control of them or not? 

Seriously, if you want to have a discussion about this, by all means, tell us how you define that, and we can discuss whether that makes any sense or not.  Let's face it, the "more gun regulation" crowd has a pretty vivid track record of being long on broad ideas and extremely incompetent when it comes to how that jives with how guns actually function.  Shoulder thing that goes up and all that.

If they're locked up, you are. That's not so hard to figure out, is it?

I don't know.  They're locked in my house.  They're not locked up more than that.  I'm guessing that doesn't meet your sniff test, but I'm also guessing you'll have a hard time explaining why.

Thank you for your completely snark-absent reply. I really appreciate the reasoned dialogue on this forum, and respect for fellow forum members is part of that.

As far as their being locked up in your house, I guess that depends on who else is in your house or has access to it with a key (that is, not breaking in unlawfully) while you're gone.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1919 on: January 12, 2017, 09:26:34 AM »
In Europe, which has far fewer gun crimes, silencers can be bought over the counter. We need laws more in line with other  developed countries!
I think that would be fine, IF we do things like require training and responsibility for your weapon.  AKA you need to keep control of it at all times and are responsible (jail time) if you do not.

What does that mean to you?  I mean, I'm at work right now, so all my guns are at home all lonely with no one there, am I keeping control of them or not? 

Seriously, if you want to have a discussion about this, by all means, tell us how you define that, and we can discuss whether that makes any sense or not.  Let's face it, the "more gun regulation" crowd has a pretty vivid track record of being long on broad ideas and extremely incompetent when it comes to how that jives with how guns actually function.  Shoulder thing that goes up and all that.

If they're locked up, you are. That's not so hard to figure out, is it?

I don't know.  They're locked in my house.  They're not locked up more than that.  I'm guessing that doesn't meet your sniff test, but I'm also guessing you'll have a hard time explaining why.
I can explain exactly why.  In high school one of my friends had his house broken into and his guns stolen.  If you are not directly controlling them they need to be locked so someone cannot get them or you need to be liable for the damage they cause. 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

Okay, here we go. 

Explain to me why a person who is capable of breaking into a locked house is not also capable of breaking into a gun lockbox?  That's all most low-end "safes" are, a metal lockbox.  I could be in one in seconds with the same tools it would take to be in your house.  Or is your standard so high that only a legitimate safe, which are very large, very heavy, and very expensive is considered adequate storage, meaning my 2A rights are dependent on my being able to afford and store a safe that costs $1k+?  If it's the latter, sorry, that's right up there with "why don't you have to show an ID to vote"?
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Malum Prohibitum

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 666
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1920 on: January 12, 2017, 09:32:27 AM »
In Europe, which has far fewer gun crimes, silencers can be bought over the counter. We need laws more in line with other  developed countries!
  Metric Mouse, a bill was introduced in Congress recently (The Hearing Protection Act) to do just that.  H.R. 367.

Odds are better for passage this time around then they have been for decades.

I never understood attaching the $200 tax to these otherwise inexpensive items.  They save your hearing.  They keep the annoyance level down for the neighbors (if you live in an area like I do where lots of us shoot on our own land).   It seems to me simply good courtesy to use them.

My state even made hunting with them legal three years ago (it used to be a crime).  The opposition was ranting about all the terrible things that were going to happen . . . which amounted to nothing.

It just makes good sense to have these items in more normal use.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1921 on: January 12, 2017, 09:34:17 AM »
In Europe, which has far fewer gun crimes, silencers can be bought over the counter. We need laws more in line with other  developed countries!
I think that would be fine, IF we do things like require training and responsibility for your weapon.  AKA you need to keep control of it at all times and are responsible (jail time) if you do not.

What does that mean to you?  I mean, I'm at work right now, so all my guns are at home all lonely with no one there, am I keeping control of them or not? 

Seriously, if you want to have a discussion about this, by all means, tell us how you define that, and we can discuss whether that makes any sense or not.  Let's face it, the "more gun regulation" crowd has a pretty vivid track record of being long on broad ideas and extremely incompetent when it comes to how that jives with how guns actually function.  Shoulder thing that goes up and all that.

If they're locked up, you are. That's not so hard to figure out, is it?

I don't know.  They're locked in my house.  They're not locked up more than that.  I'm guessing that doesn't meet your sniff test, but I'm also guessing you'll have a hard time explaining why.

Thank you for your completely snark-absent reply. I really appreciate the reasoned dialogue on this forum, and respect for fellow forum members is part of that.

As far as their being locked up in your house, I guess that depends on who else is in your house or has access to it with a key (that is, not breaking in unlawfully) while you're gone.

So there's another aspect, that we've talked about earlier in the thread.  I have a 4y/o daughter.  She has "access" to the guns in the sense that they are in the house and she could theoretically lay a hand on one.  However, none of them are stored in a manner that she could make them go boom; some are loaded in a way that, in order to fire, they would require her to perform some actions that she has neither the strength nor dexterity to do, and some are unloaded with ammunition in an unlocked but unreachable place, but that if she were to get her hands on, she also lacks the dexterity to load and fire the weapon.  To me, that's "controlled".  I'm convinced no gun grabber would agree, but I'm also convinced very few gun grabbers who would object to my storage also possess the ability to load and fire, say, my AR-15*, so I'd be hard pressed to understand why they would object given that they can't make it go boom either.

*know how to bring the bolt back and then release it and chamber a round?  I bet not. 
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Malum Prohibitum

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 666
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1922 on: January 12, 2017, 09:36:29 AM »
In Europe, which has far fewer gun crimes, silencers can be bought over the counter. We need laws more in line with other  developed countries!
I think that would be fine, IF we do things like require training and responsibility for your weapon.  AKA you need to keep control of it at all times and are responsible (jail time) if you do not.

What does that mean to you?  I mean, I'm at work right now, so all my guns are at home all lonely with no one there, am I keeping control of them or not? 

Seriously, if you want to have a discussion about this, by all means, tell us how you define that, and we can discuss whether that makes any sense or not.  Let's face it, the "more gun regulation" crowd has a pretty vivid track record of being long on broad ideas and extremely incompetent when it comes to how that jives with how guns actually function.  Shoulder thing that goes up and all that.

If they're locked up, you are. That's not so hard to figure out, is it?

I don't know.  They're locked in my house.  They're not locked up more than that.  I'm guessing that doesn't meet your sniff test, but I'm also guessing you'll have a hard time explaining why.
I can explain exactly why.  In high school one of my friends had his house broken into and his guns stolen.  If you are not directly controlling them they need to be locked so someone cannot get them or you need to be liable for the damage they cause. 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

Okay, here we go. 

Explain to me why a person who is capable of breaking into a locked house is not also capable of breaking into a gun lockbox?  That's all most low-end "safes" are, a metal lockbox.  I could be in one in seconds with the same tools it would take to be in your house.  Or is your standard so high that only a legitimate safe, which are very large, very heavy, and very expensive is considered adequate storage, meaning my 2A rights are dependent on my being able to afford and store a safe that costs $1k+?  If it's the latter, sorry, that's right up there with "why don't you have to show an ID to vote"?
  Chris22,
I do not know why this tangent started off a post about silencers, but I do not think any of them advocated a law banning you from owning weapons unless they are locked in an expensive safe  They are just saying it is a good idea. 

You agree it's a good idea, don't you?

I would never support such a law, but I agree it is a good idea to have them locked up, just like I would fight a training requirement in the law, but I still think training is a very good idea.

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2410
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1923 on: January 12, 2017, 09:37:17 AM »
In Europe, which has far fewer gun crimes, silencers can be bought over the counter. We need laws more in line with other  developed countries!
I think that would be fine, IF we do things like require training and responsibility for your weapon.  AKA you need to keep control of it at all times and are responsible (jail time) if you do not.

What does that mean to you?  I mean, I'm at work right now, so all my guns are at home all lonely with no one there, am I keeping control of them or not? 

Seriously, if you want to have a discussion about this, by all means, tell us how you define that, and we can discuss whether that makes any sense or not.  Let's face it, the "more gun regulation" crowd has a pretty vivid track record of being long on broad ideas and extremely incompetent when it comes to how that jives with how guns actually function.  Shoulder thing that goes up and all that.

If they're locked up, you are. That's not so hard to figure out, is it?

I don't know.  They're locked in my house.  They're not locked up more than that.  I'm guessing that doesn't meet your sniff test, but I'm also guessing you'll have a hard time explaining why.

Thank you for your completely snark-absent reply. I really appreciate the reasoned dialogue on this forum, and respect for fellow forum members is part of that.

As far as their being locked up in your house, I guess that depends on who else is in your house or has access to it with a key (that is, not breaking in unlawfully) while you're gone.

So there's another aspect, that we've talked about earlier in the thread.  I have a 4y/o daughter.  She has "access" to the guns in the sense that they are in the house and she could theoretically lay a hand on one.  However, none of them are stored in a manner that she could make them go boom; some are loaded in a way that, in order to fire, they would require her to perform some actions that she has neither the strength nor dexterity to do, and some are unloaded with ammunition in an unlocked but unreachable place, but that if she were to get her hands on, she also lacks the dexterity to load and fire the weapon.  To me, that's "controlled".  I'm convinced no gun grabber would agree, but I'm also convinced very few gun grabbers who would object to my storage also possess the ability to load and fire, say, my AR-15*, so I'd be hard pressed to understand why they would object given that they can't make it go boom either.

*know how to bring the bolt back and then release it and chamber a round?  I bet not.

Sigh. Again with the snark. Really, anyone who might disagree with any of your points is a "gun grabber"?

Also, yes, I do know how to bring the bolt back and then release it and chamber a round.

I actually have a permit to carry. As does my husband.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1924 on: January 12, 2017, 09:47:58 AM »
In Europe, which has far fewer gun crimes, silencers can be bought over the counter. We need laws more in line with other  developed countries!
I think that would be fine, IF we do things like require training and responsibility for your weapon.  AKA you need to keep control of it at all times and are responsible (jail time) if you do not.

What does that mean to you?  I mean, I'm at work right now, so all my guns are at home all lonely with no one there, am I keeping control of them or not? 

Seriously, if you want to have a discussion about this, by all means, tell us how you define that, and we can discuss whether that makes any sense or not.  Let's face it, the "more gun regulation" crowd has a pretty vivid track record of being long on broad ideas and extremely incompetent when it comes to how that jives with how guns actually function.  Shoulder thing that goes up and all that.

If they're locked up, you are. That's not so hard to figure out, is it?

I don't know.  They're locked in my house.  They're not locked up more than that.  I'm guessing that doesn't meet your sniff test, but I'm also guessing you'll have a hard time explaining why.

Thank you for your completely snark-absent reply. I really appreciate the reasoned dialogue on this forum, and respect for fellow forum members is part of that.

As far as their being locked up in your house, I guess that depends on who else is in your house or has access to it with a key (that is, not breaking in unlawfully) while you're gone.

So there's another aspect, that we've talked about earlier in the thread.  I have a 4y/o daughter.  She has "access" to the guns in the sense that they are in the house and she could theoretically lay a hand on one.  However, none of them are stored in a manner that she could make them go boom; some are loaded in a way that, in order to fire, they would require her to perform some actions that she has neither the strength nor dexterity to do, and some are unloaded with ammunition in an unlocked but unreachable place, but that if she were to get her hands on, she also lacks the dexterity to load and fire the weapon.  To me, that's "controlled".  I'm convinced no gun grabber would agree, but I'm also convinced very few gun grabbers who would object to my storage also possess the ability to load and fire, say, my AR-15*, so I'd be hard pressed to understand why they would object given that they can't make it go boom either.

*know how to bring the bolt back and then release it and chamber a round?  I bet not.

Sigh. Again with the snark. Really, anyone who might disagree with any of your points is a "gun grabber"?

Also, yes, I do know how to bring the bolt back and then release it and chamber a round.

I actually have a permit to carry. As does my husband.

"Gun Control Enthusiast"?  I dunno, what do you want to be called?

And at any rate, given that you know how to fire an AR-15, do you agree that the average 4y/o is incapable of doing so if they started with an unloaded weapon, and therefore the paranoia about having to have them locked up is unfounded?
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2410
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1925 on: January 12, 2017, 09:51:38 AM »
In Europe, which has far fewer gun crimes, silencers can be bought over the counter. We need laws more in line with other  developed countries!
I think that would be fine, IF we do things like require training and responsibility for your weapon.  AKA you need to keep control of it at all times and are responsible (jail time) if you do not.

What does that mean to you?  I mean, I'm at work right now, so all my guns are at home all lonely with no one there, am I keeping control of them or not? 

Seriously, if you want to have a discussion about this, by all means, tell us how you define that, and we can discuss whether that makes any sense or not.  Let's face it, the "more gun regulation" crowd has a pretty vivid track record of being long on broad ideas and extremely incompetent when it comes to how that jives with how guns actually function.  Shoulder thing that goes up and all that.

If they're locked up, you are. That's not so hard to figure out, is it?

I don't know.  They're locked in my house.  They're not locked up more than that.  I'm guessing that doesn't meet your sniff test, but I'm also guessing you'll have a hard time explaining why.

Thank you for your completely snark-absent reply. I really appreciate the reasoned dialogue on this forum, and respect for fellow forum members is part of that.

As far as their being locked up in your house, I guess that depends on who else is in your house or has access to it with a key (that is, not breaking in unlawfully) while you're gone.

So there's another aspect, that we've talked about earlier in the thread.  I have a 4y/o daughter.  She has "access" to the guns in the sense that they are in the house and she could theoretically lay a hand on one.  However, none of them are stored in a manner that she could make them go boom; some are loaded in a way that, in order to fire, they would require her to perform some actions that she has neither the strength nor dexterity to do, and some are unloaded with ammunition in an unlocked but unreachable place, but that if she were to get her hands on, she also lacks the dexterity to load and fire the weapon.  To me, that's "controlled".  I'm convinced no gun grabber would agree, but I'm also convinced very few gun grabbers who would object to my storage also possess the ability to load and fire, say, my AR-15*, so I'd be hard pressed to understand why they would object given that they can't make it go boom either.

*know how to bring the bolt back and then release it and chamber a round?  I bet not.

Sigh. Again with the snark. Really, anyone who might disagree with any of your points is a "gun grabber"?

Also, yes, I do know how to bring the bolt back and then release it and chamber a round.

I actually have a permit to carry. As does my husband.

"Gun Control Enthusiast"?  I dunno, what do you want to be called?

And at any rate, given that you know how to fire an AR-15, do you agree that the average 4y/o is incapable of doing so if they started with an unloaded weapon, and therefore the paranoia about having to have them locked up is unfounded?

How about "responsible gun owner"?

Chris, honestly, I think I'm just kind of done with this discussion. You seem to make a concerted effort to be sarcastic and snarky toward me because of who you think I am. You seem to be incapable of having a conversation about this that doesn't involve mocking anyone who doesn't completely agree with you. Given that, why would I engage in the conversation at all? It's just setting myself up to be made fun of because I'm not as all-knowing as you.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2017, 09:53:28 AM by Kris »
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1926 on: January 12, 2017, 09:52:17 AM »
Chris22,
I do not know why this tangent started off a post about silencers, but I do not think any of them advocated a law banning you from owning weapons unless they are locked in an expensive safe  They are just saying it is a good idea. 

Well, it stemmed from Gin1984's comment about having our weapons "controlled" which went exactly where I expected it to. 

Quote
You agree it's a good idea, don't you?

Not necessarily.  What did I read once?  "Safety is an expensive illusion?"  I think keeping a loaded handgun locked or otherwise inaccessible is a good idea.  I think an unloaded AR or a condition III shotgun unlocked makes it no more safe or unsafe than the baseball bat I have leaning in the corner of my garage.  And I don't trust politicians to make laws that make sense because I think they'll start with premises like "it's a good idea to keep your guns locked up."
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1927 on: January 12, 2017, 09:58:47 AM »
How about "responsible gun owner"?

No thanks, because that implies that someone like me who disagrees with you is an "irresponsible gun owner" and I don't believe that to be the case.

Quote
Chris, honestly, I think I'm just kind of done with this discussion. Three responses from you to me, and in all three of them you are sarcastic and snarky toward me because of who you think I am. You seem to be incapable of having a conversation about this that doesn't involve mocking anyone who doesn't completely agree with you. Given that, why would I engage in the conversation at all? It's just setting myself up to be made fun of because I'm not as all-knowing as you.

That's fine, you are welcome to walk away. 

If I'm passionate and arrogant about this issue, I'm okay with that, given the amount of absolute garbage legislation passed by ignorant politicians catering to ignorant constituents who want "something done" on gun violence, whether or not that "something" makes any sense or will have any effect on the problem. 

Quite frankly, you can almost never go wrong underestimating the level of ignorance around firearms and firearms laws presented by people who want more laws governing them.  The other day I read a post on another board about someone insisting that we need to make a law preventing people from driving to Indiana, buying guns from their buddy, and driving back to Chicago and murdering people with it, all the while completely ignorant of the fact that there IS such a law already. 

So yes, I will own up to the fact that I assume anyone arguing for more gun legislation has no idea what they're talking about, given that most of the time, they don't. 
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Malum Prohibitum

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 666
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1928 on: January 12, 2017, 09:59:14 AM »
I actually have a permit to carry. As does my husband.
LOL!  Now THAT I did not expect, but it's pretty cool.

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2410
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1929 on: January 12, 2017, 10:01:15 AM »
How about "responsible gun owner"?

No thanks, because that implies that someone like me who disagrees with you is an "irresponsible gun owner" and I don't believe that to be the case.

Quote
Chris, honestly, I think I'm just kind of done with this discussion. Three responses from you to me, and in all three of them you are sarcastic and snarky toward me because of who you think I am. You seem to be incapable of having a conversation about this that doesn't involve mocking anyone who doesn't completely agree with you. Given that, why would I engage in the conversation at all? It's just setting myself up to be made fun of because I'm not as all-knowing as you.

That's fine, you are welcome to walk away. 

If I'm passionate and arrogant about this issue, I'm okay with that, given the amount of absolute garbage legislation passed by ignorant politicians catering to ignorant constituents who want "something done" on gun violence, whether or not that "something" makes any sense or will have any effect on the problem. 

Quite frankly, you can almost never go wrong underestimating the level of ignorance around firearms and firearms laws presented by people who want more laws governing them.  The other day I read a post on another board about someone insisting that we need to make a law preventing people from driving to Indiana, buying guns from their buddy, and driving back to Chicago and murdering people with it, all the while completely ignorant of the fact that there IS such a law already. 

So yes, I will own up to the fact that I assume anyone arguing for more gun legislation has no idea what they're talking about, given that most of the time, they don't.

Absolutely not. And therein lies your error, and the problem. You think in zero-sum absolutes, and that anyone who disagrees with you is touched in the head or an idiot, apparently. Since you think of yourself as a "responsible gun owner," and you yourself just said that means that I'm an irresponsible gun owner, then you are not someone who can be talked to or reasoned with.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Malum Prohibitum

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 666
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1930 on: January 12, 2017, 10:01:32 AM »
Chris22,
I do not know why this tangent started off a post about silencers, but I do not think any of them advocated a law banning you from owning weapons unless they are locked in an expensive safe  They are just saying it is a good idea. 

Well, it stemmed from Gin1984's comment about having our weapons "controlled" which went exactly where I expected it to. 

Quote
You agree it's a good idea, don't you?

Not necessarily.  What did I read once?  "Safety is an expensive illusion?"  I think keeping a loaded handgun locked or otherwise inaccessible is a good idea.  I think an unloaded AR or a condition III shotgun unlocked makes it no more safe or unsafe than the baseball bat I have leaning in the corner of my garage.  And I don't trust politicians to make laws that make sense because I think they'll start with premises like "it's a good idea to keep your guns locked up."
  They were referring to when the guns are home alone.  It makes them less likely to be stolen.

Malum Prohibitum

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 666
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1931 on: January 12, 2017, 10:04:27 AM »
Quite frankly, you can almost never go wrong underestimating the level of ignorance around firearms and firearms laws presented by people who want more laws governing them.  The other day I read a post on another board about someone insisting that we need to make a law preventing people from driving to Indiana, buying guns from their buddy, and driving back to Chicago and murdering people with it, all the while completely ignorant of the fact that there IS such a law already. 

So yes, I will own up to the fact that I assume anyone arguing for more gun legislation has no idea what they're talking about, given that most of the time, they don't.
  Has Kris advocated ANY laws (good, bad, or otherwise) on this thread?  I do not have time to go through the entire 40 pages today, but I have read most of them at some point last year, and I do not recall her doing so.

zolotiyeruki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2154
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1932 on: January 12, 2017, 10:07:28 AM »

So there's another aspect, that we've talked about earlier in the thread.  I have a 4y/o daughter.  She has "access" to the guns in the sense that they are in the house and she could theoretically lay a hand on one.  However, none of them are stored in a manner that she could make them go boom; some are loaded in a way that, in order to fire, they would require her to perform some actions that she has neither the strength nor dexterity to do, and some are unloaded with ammunition in an unlocked but unreachable place, but that if she were to get her hands on, she also lacks the dexterity to load and fire the weapon.  To me, that's "controlled".  I'm convinced no gun grabber would agree, but I'm also convinced very few gun grabbers who would object to my storage also possess the ability to load and fire, say, my AR-15*, so I'd be hard pressed to understand why they would object given that they can't make it go boom either.

*know how to bring the bolt back and then release it and chamber a round?  I bet not.

Sigh. Again with the snark. Really, anyone who might disagree with any of your points is a "gun grabber"?

Also, yes, I do know how to bring the bolt back and then release it and chamber a round.

I actually have a permit to carry. As does my husband.
Snark aside, Chris22 makes a good point--the people who advocate for laws requiring locked storage (or similar measures) often use "safety" (or, if you want to be snarky, "think of the children!") as the justification, but when it comes down to actually defining legal requirements, it all kinda falls apart.  You see the same issue arise when people discuss an "assault weapons" ban.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1933 on: January 12, 2017, 10:09:07 AM »
Chris22,
I do not know why this tangent started off a post about silencers, but I do not think any of them advocated a law banning you from owning weapons unless they are locked in an expensive safe  They are just saying it is a good idea. 

Well, it stemmed from Gin1984's comment about having our weapons "controlled" which went exactly where I expected it to. 

Quote
You agree it's a good idea, don't you?

Not necessarily.  What did I read once?  "Safety is an expensive illusion?"  I think keeping a loaded handgun locked or otherwise inaccessible is a good idea.  I think an unloaded AR or a condition III shotgun unlocked makes it no more safe or unsafe than the baseball bat I have leaning in the corner of my garage.  And I don't trust politicians to make laws that make sense because I think they'll start with premises like "it's a good idea to keep your guns locked up."
  They were referring to when the guns are home alone.  It makes them less likely to be stolen.

I don't necessarily think that's true.  Maybe for the most casual thief, but most gun storage lockers are either flimsy enough to be easily broken into, light enough to be carried off and broken into later, or large actual safes that are theft-resistant but have plenty of other drawbacks.  I think most "locking gun storage cabinets" are more about keeping kids out (which is no bad thing) than about keeping the weapons safe from theft. 
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2410
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1934 on: January 12, 2017, 10:11:13 AM »

So there's another aspect, that we've talked about earlier in the thread.  I have a 4y/o daughter.  She has "access" to the guns in the sense that they are in the house and she could theoretically lay a hand on one.  However, none of them are stored in a manner that she could make them go boom; some are loaded in a way that, in order to fire, they would require her to perform some actions that she has neither the strength nor dexterity to do, and some are unloaded with ammunition in an unlocked but unreachable place, but that if she were to get her hands on, she also lacks the dexterity to load and fire the weapon.  To me, that's "controlled".  I'm convinced no gun grabber would agree, but I'm also convinced very few gun grabbers who would object to my storage also possess the ability to load and fire, say, my AR-15*, so I'd be hard pressed to understand why they would object given that they can't make it go boom either.

*know how to bring the bolt back and then release it and chamber a round?  I bet not.

Sigh. Again with the snark. Really, anyone who might disagree with any of your points is a "gun grabber"?

Also, yes, I do know how to bring the bolt back and then release it and chamber a round.

I actually have a permit to carry. As does my husband.
Snark aside, Chris22 makes a good point--the people who advocate for laws requiring locked storage (or similar measures) often use "safety" (or, if you want to be snarky, "think of the children!") as the justification, but when it comes down to actually defining legal requirements, it all kinda falls apart.  You see the same issue arise when people discuss an "assault weapons" ban.

Yet another reason why I'm not going to continue "discussing" with him, though. Because he is not arguing or discussing with me. He's creating the side of the argument that he wants to berate, and then putting those arguments out there like I'm the one making them. He's putting up a straw man (or paper target, if you prefer) to shoot holes in, rather than having a discussion with the person who is standing right next to him at the gun range. Me.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1935 on: January 12, 2017, 10:12:03 AM »
Quite frankly, you can almost never go wrong underestimating the level of ignorance around firearms and firearms laws presented by people who want more laws governing them.  The other day I read a post on another board about someone insisting that we need to make a law preventing people from driving to Indiana, buying guns from their buddy, and driving back to Chicago and murdering people with it, all the while completely ignorant of the fact that there IS such a law already. 

So yes, I will own up to the fact that I assume anyone arguing for more gun legislation has no idea what they're talking about, given that most of the time, they don't.
  Has Kris advocated ANY laws (good, bad, or otherwise) on this thread?  I do not have time to go through the entire 40 pages today, but I have read most of them at some point last year, and I do not recall her doing so.

Specific laws?  I don't know.  But she jumped right on Gin1984's point about guns being "controlled" with "if they're locked up..."  Does that explicitly suggest a law, no, but it does imply a standard of responsible gun ownership that should be adhered to.
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2410
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1936 on: January 12, 2017, 10:14:05 AM »
Quite frankly, you can almost never go wrong underestimating the level of ignorance around firearms and firearms laws presented by people who want more laws governing them.  The other day I read a post on another board about someone insisting that we need to make a law preventing people from driving to Indiana, buying guns from their buddy, and driving back to Chicago and murdering people with it, all the while completely ignorant of the fact that there IS such a law already. 

So yes, I will own up to the fact that I assume anyone arguing for more gun legislation has no idea what they're talking about, given that most of the time, they don't.
  Has Kris advocated ANY laws (good, bad, or otherwise) on this thread?  I do not have time to go through the entire 40 pages today, but I have read most of them at some point last year, and I do not recall her doing so.

Specific laws?  I don't know.  But she jumped right on Gin1984's point about guns being "controlled" with "if they're locked up..."  Does that explicitly suggest a law, no, but it does imply a standard of responsible gun ownership that should be adhered to.

I was citing that as an example of being "controlled." That doesn't mean that's the only possible way they could be. But I think a reasonable person (or a reasonable law) would consider having guns secured in a safe as one example of it. Apparently that makes me a "gun grabber" and a nut.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1937 on: January 12, 2017, 10:17:02 AM »
How about "responsible gun owner"?

No thanks, because that implies that someone like me who disagrees with you is an "irresponsible gun owner" and I don't believe that to be the case.

Quote
Chris, honestly, I think I'm just kind of done with this discussion. Three responses from you to me, and in all three of them you are sarcastic and snarky toward me because of who you think I am. You seem to be incapable of having a conversation about this that doesn't involve mocking anyone who doesn't completely agree with you. Given that, why would I engage in the conversation at all? It's just setting myself up to be made fun of because I'm not as all-knowing as you.

That's fine, you are welcome to walk away. 

If I'm passionate and arrogant about this issue, I'm okay with that, given the amount of absolute garbage legislation passed by ignorant politicians catering to ignorant constituents who want "something done" on gun violence, whether or not that "something" makes any sense or will have any effect on the problem. 

Quite frankly, you can almost never go wrong underestimating the level of ignorance around firearms and firearms laws presented by people who want more laws governing them.  The other day I read a post on another board about someone insisting that we need to make a law preventing people from driving to Indiana, buying guns from their buddy, and driving back to Chicago and murdering people with it, all the while completely ignorant of the fact that there IS such a law already. 

So yes, I will own up to the fact that I assume anyone arguing for more gun legislation has no idea what they're talking about, given that most of the time, they don't.

Absolutely not. And therein lies your error, and the problem. You think in zero-sum absolutes, and that anyone who disagrees with you is touched in the head or an idiot, apparently. Since you think of yourself as a "responsible gun owner," and you yourself just said that means that I'm an irresponsible gun owner, then you are not someone who can be talked to or reasoned with.

No, I generally give the benefit of the doubt and think "well meaning but ignorant."  You want to talk to the real gun freaks (I'm a rank amateur) and they'll tell you it's because you ultimately desire to control me.  I give people more of the benefit of the doubt than that.

Also, I think you misunderstand my responsible versus irresponsible thing.  I believe you are a responsible gun owner based on your statements here.  I also believe you are more risk averse than I am.  I therefore think that if you believe part of being a responsible gun owner is keeping the guns locked up, and I do not do that, you think I'm irresponsible.  I don't, in turn, think that because I think I'm responsible it makes you irresponsible, I just think you're more risk averse.  Think of it as a sliding scale, on the scale of gun owners, you're a 2, and I'm a 5, and I think anything under, say, 7, is responsible.  I get the feeling you'd put that line more at a 2 or a 3.
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1938 on: January 12, 2017, 10:20:31 AM »
I was citing that as an example of being "controlled." That doesn't mean that's the only possible way they could be. But I think a reasonable person (or a reasonable law) would consider having guns secured in a safe as one example of it. Apparently that makes me a "gun grabber" and a nut.

You presented it as a standard, not an example.  "Are they controlled" "If they're locked up."

I think that would be fine, IF we do things like require training and responsibility for your weapon.  AKA you need to keep control of it at all times and are responsible (jail time) if you do not.

What does that mean to you?  I mean, I'm at work right now, so all my guns are at home all lonely with no one there, am I keeping control of them or not? 


If they're locked up, you are. That's not so hard to figure out, is it?

That doesn't suggest to me there are other options.  I'm reacting to the words you used.


I'll also note that the "that's not so hard to figure out" was the introduction of snark to this discussion, so I don't get why you're so angry when I was snarky back.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2017, 10:22:31 AM by Chris22 »
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2410
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1939 on: January 12, 2017, 10:24:20 AM »
How about "responsible gun owner"?

No thanks, because that implies that someone like me who disagrees with you is an "irresponsible gun owner" and I don't believe that to be the case.

Quote
Chris, honestly, I think I'm just kind of done with this discussion. Three responses from you to me, and in all three of them you are sarcastic and snarky toward me because of who you think I am. You seem to be incapable of having a conversation about this that doesn't involve mocking anyone who doesn't completely agree with you. Given that, why would I engage in the conversation at all? It's just setting myself up to be made fun of because I'm not as all-knowing as you.

That's fine, you are welcome to walk away. 

If I'm passionate and arrogant about this issue, I'm okay with that, given the amount of absolute garbage legislation passed by ignorant politicians catering to ignorant constituents who want "something done" on gun violence, whether or not that "something" makes any sense or will have any effect on the problem. 

Quite frankly, you can almost never go wrong underestimating the level of ignorance around firearms and firearms laws presented by people who want more laws governing them.  The other day I read a post on another board about someone insisting that we need to make a law preventing people from driving to Indiana, buying guns from their buddy, and driving back to Chicago and murdering people with it, all the while completely ignorant of the fact that there IS such a law already. 

So yes, I will own up to the fact that I assume anyone arguing for more gun legislation has no idea what they're talking about, given that most of the time, they don't.

Absolutely not. And therein lies your error, and the problem. You think in zero-sum absolutes, and that anyone who disagrees with you is touched in the head or an idiot, apparently. Since you think of yourself as a "responsible gun owner," and you yourself just said that means that I'm an irresponsible gun owner, then you are not someone who can be talked to or reasoned with.

No, I generally give the benefit of the doubt and think "well meaning but ignorant."  You want to talk to the real gun freaks (I'm a rank amateur) and they'll tell you it's because you ultimately desire to control me.  I give people more of the benefit of the doubt than that.

Also, I think you misunderstand my responsible versus irresponsible thing.  I believe you are a responsible gun owner based on your statements here.  I also believe you are more risk averse than I am. I therefore think that if you believe part of being a responsible gun owner is keeping the guns locked up, and I do not do that, you think I'm irresponsible. I don't, in turn, think that because I think I'm responsible it makes you irresponsible, I just think you're more risk averse.  Think of it as a sliding scale, on the scale of gun owners, you're a 2, and I'm a 5, and I think anything under, say, 7, is responsible.  I get the feeling you'd put that line more at a 2 or a 3.

Sigh. And there you go again, arguing with your straw man. I'm out. You don't need me for this conversation. You can go have it with the version of me you've created in your head.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Malum Prohibitum

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 666
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1940 on: January 12, 2017, 10:24:54 AM »
Heller v. DC struck down D.C.'s trigger lock requirement, so I can't see storage laws surviving constitutional scrutiny.  This part of the Heller opinion did not get any press, for some reason, but it's pretty clear.  Basically, the law may not interfere with having a gun available for immediate use in self defense.  After discussing D.C.'s requirement that guns be disassembled or wearing a trigger lock or similar device, the Court struck down both the ban on possession and the storage restrictions.   Here is their holding at the end:

Quote
In sum, we hold that the Districtís ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment , as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.

That sort of takes this issue off the table in terms of legislation, unless there is a change in the makeup of the court, which at this point appears unlikely given the election of Donald Trump and the fact that he will choose Scalia's successor.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1941 on: January 12, 2017, 10:26:15 AM »
How about "responsible gun owner"?

No thanks, because that implies that someone like me who disagrees with you is an "irresponsible gun owner" and I don't believe that to be the case.

Quote
Chris, honestly, I think I'm just kind of done with this discussion. Three responses from you to me, and in all three of them you are sarcastic and snarky toward me because of who you think I am. You seem to be incapable of having a conversation about this that doesn't involve mocking anyone who doesn't completely agree with you. Given that, why would I engage in the conversation at all? It's just setting myself up to be made fun of because I'm not as all-knowing as you.

That's fine, you are welcome to walk away. 

If I'm passionate and arrogant about this issue, I'm okay with that, given the amount of absolute garbage legislation passed by ignorant politicians catering to ignorant constituents who want "something done" on gun violence, whether or not that "something" makes any sense or will have any effect on the problem. 

Quite frankly, you can almost never go wrong underestimating the level of ignorance around firearms and firearms laws presented by people who want more laws governing them.  The other day I read a post on another board about someone insisting that we need to make a law preventing people from driving to Indiana, buying guns from their buddy, and driving back to Chicago and murdering people with it, all the while completely ignorant of the fact that there IS such a law already. 

So yes, I will own up to the fact that I assume anyone arguing for more gun legislation has no idea what they're talking about, given that most of the time, they don't.

Absolutely not. And therein lies your error, and the problem. You think in zero-sum absolutes, and that anyone who disagrees with you is touched in the head or an idiot, apparently. Since you think of yourself as a "responsible gun owner," and you yourself just said that means that I'm an irresponsible gun owner, then you are not someone who can be talked to or reasoned with.

No, I generally give the benefit of the doubt and think "well meaning but ignorant."  You want to talk to the real gun freaks (I'm a rank amateur) and they'll tell you it's because you ultimately desire to control me.  I give people more of the benefit of the doubt than that.

Also, I think you misunderstand my responsible versus irresponsible thing.  I believe you are a responsible gun owner based on your statements here.  I also believe you are more risk averse than I am. I therefore think that if you believe part of being a responsible gun owner is keeping the guns locked up, and I do not do that, you think I'm irresponsible. I don't, in turn, think that because I think I'm responsible it makes you irresponsible, I just think you're more risk averse.  Think of it as a sliding scale, on the scale of gun owners, you're a 2, and I'm a 5, and I think anything under, say, 7, is responsible.  I get the feeling you'd put that line more at a 2 or a 3.

Sigh. And there you go again, arguing with your straw man. I'm out. You don't need me for this conversation. You can go have it with the version of me you've created in your head.

Read my next post.  Tell me you didn't made a very specific statement that "if guns are locked up, they are controlled".  If I'm reacting to that, how can it be a strawman?  It's what you said.  If it isn't what you meant, then fine, but don't be mad when I react to what.  you.  said.
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2410
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1942 on: January 12, 2017, 10:28:18 AM »
How about "responsible gun owner"?

No thanks, because that implies that someone like me who disagrees with you is an "irresponsible gun owner" and I don't believe that to be the case.

Quote
Chris, honestly, I think I'm just kind of done with this discussion. Three responses from you to me, and in all three of them you are sarcastic and snarky toward me because of who you think I am. You seem to be incapable of having a conversation about this that doesn't involve mocking anyone who doesn't completely agree with you. Given that, why would I engage in the conversation at all? It's just setting myself up to be made fun of because I'm not as all-knowing as you.

That's fine, you are welcome to walk away. 

If I'm passionate and arrogant about this issue, I'm okay with that, given the amount of absolute garbage legislation passed by ignorant politicians catering to ignorant constituents who want "something done" on gun violence, whether or not that "something" makes any sense or will have any effect on the problem. 

Quite frankly, you can almost never go wrong underestimating the level of ignorance around firearms and firearms laws presented by people who want more laws governing them.  The other day I read a post on another board about someone insisting that we need to make a law preventing people from driving to Indiana, buying guns from their buddy, and driving back to Chicago and murdering people with it, all the while completely ignorant of the fact that there IS such a law already. 

So yes, I will own up to the fact that I assume anyone arguing for more gun legislation has no idea what they're talking about, given that most of the time, they don't.

Absolutely not. And therein lies your error, and the problem. You think in zero-sum absolutes, and that anyone who disagrees with you is touched in the head or an idiot, apparently. Since you think of yourself as a "responsible gun owner," and you yourself just said that means that I'm an irresponsible gun owner, then you are not someone who can be talked to or reasoned with.

No, I generally give the benefit of the doubt and think "well meaning but ignorant."  You want to talk to the real gun freaks (I'm a rank amateur) and they'll tell you it's because you ultimately desire to control me.  I give people more of the benefit of the doubt than that.

Also, I think you misunderstand my responsible versus irresponsible thing.  I believe you are a responsible gun owner based on your statements here.  I also believe you are more risk averse than I am. I therefore think that if you believe part of being a responsible gun owner is keeping the guns locked up, and I do not do that, you think I'm irresponsible. I don't, in turn, think that because I think I'm responsible it makes you irresponsible, I just think you're more risk averse.  Think of it as a sliding scale, on the scale of gun owners, you're a 2, and I'm a 5, and I think anything under, say, 7, is responsible.  I get the feeling you'd put that line more at a 2 or a 3.

Sigh. And there you go again, arguing with your straw man. I'm out. You don't need me for this conversation. You can go have it with the version of me you've created in your head.

Read my next post.  Tell me you didn't made a very specific statement that "if guns are locked up, they are controlled".  If I'm reacting to that, how can it be a strawman?  It's what you said.  If it isn't what you meant, then fine, but don't be mad when I react to what.  you.  said.

Oh, for God's sake.

If guns are locked up, that is ONE WAY of their being controlled.

Dude, I have three guns. None of them are locked up. I don't even have a gun safe.

Christ, is there ANY point in this conversation?
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Malum Prohibitum

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 666
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1943 on: January 12, 2017, 10:31:44 AM »
No, I generally give the benefit of the doubt and think "well meaning but ignorant."  You want to talk to the real gun freaks (I'm a rank amateur) and they'll tell you it's because you ultimately desire to control me.  I give people more of the benefit of the doubt than that.
  As a "real gun freak" who founded an organization with more than 10,000 members dedicated to this issue, that changed criminal laws affecting the right to bear arms through education, legislation, and litigation, I have to say that your "approach" at persuasion leaves a little to be desired.

Being a jerk ("snarky") has never convinced anybody of anything.

This seems to be the number one problem that keeps this civil right from moving forward.  Those who value it are generally not very persuasive and frequently cause the other side to shut down (although I am not sure how much Kris is "the other side").  I can't even imagine what you would be writing to a poster on here who was actually sincerely calling for gun control, but I am guessing you would fail at persuading that person to your side.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1944 on: January 12, 2017, 10:32:15 AM »
How about "responsible gun owner"?

No thanks, because that implies that someone like me who disagrees with you is an "irresponsible gun owner" and I don't believe that to be the case.

Quote
Chris, honestly, I think I'm just kind of done with this discussion. Three responses from you to me, and in all three of them you are sarcastic and snarky toward me because of who you think I am. You seem to be incapable of having a conversation about this that doesn't involve mocking anyone who doesn't completely agree with you. Given that, why would I engage in the conversation at all? It's just setting myself up to be made fun of because I'm not as all-knowing as you.

That's fine, you are welcome to walk away. 

If I'm passionate and arrogant about this issue, I'm okay with that, given the amount of absolute garbage legislation passed by ignorant politicians catering to ignorant constituents who want "something done" on gun violence, whether or not that "something" makes any sense or will have any effect on the problem. 

Quite frankly, you can almost never go wrong underestimating the level of ignorance around firearms and firearms laws presented by people who want more laws governing them.  The other day I read a post on another board about someone insisting that we need to make a law preventing people from driving to Indiana, buying guns from their buddy, and driving back to Chicago and murdering people with it, all the while completely ignorant of the fact that there IS such a law already. 

So yes, I will own up to the fact that I assume anyone arguing for more gun legislation has no idea what they're talking about, given that most of the time, they don't.

Absolutely not. And therein lies your error, and the problem. You think in zero-sum absolutes, and that anyone who disagrees with you is touched in the head or an idiot, apparently. Since you think of yourself as a "responsible gun owner," and you yourself just said that means that I'm an irresponsible gun owner, then you are not someone who can be talked to or reasoned with.

No, I generally give the benefit of the doubt and think "well meaning but ignorant."  You want to talk to the real gun freaks (I'm a rank amateur) and they'll tell you it's because you ultimately desire to control me.  I give people more of the benefit of the doubt than that.

Also, I think you misunderstand my responsible versus irresponsible thing.  I believe you are a responsible gun owner based on your statements here.  I also believe you are more risk averse than I am. I therefore think that if you believe part of being a responsible gun owner is keeping the guns locked up, and I do not do that, you think I'm irresponsible. I don't, in turn, think that because I think I'm responsible it makes you irresponsible, I just think you're more risk averse.  Think of it as a sliding scale, on the scale of gun owners, you're a 2, and I'm a 5, and I think anything under, say, 7, is responsible.  I get the feeling you'd put that line more at a 2 or a 3.

Sigh. And there you go again, arguing with your straw man. I'm out. You don't need me for this conversation. You can go have it with the version of me you've created in your head.

Read my next post.  Tell me you didn't made a very specific statement that "if guns are locked up, they are controlled".  If I'm reacting to that, how can it be a strawman?  It's what you said.  If it isn't what you meant, then fine, but don't be mad when I react to what.  you.  said.

Oh, for God's sake.

If guns are locked up, that is ONE WAY of their being controlled.

Dude, I have three guns. None of them are locked up. I don't even have a gun safe.

Christ, is there ANY point in this conversation?

Why so hysterical? 

Yes, given what you say NOW, agreed, it's ONE WAY.

Do you see how, reading what you initially said, snark included, I interpreted that you meant it's the ONLY way and reacted accordingly?
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2410
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1945 on: January 12, 2017, 10:45:02 AM »
How about "responsible gun owner"?

No thanks, because that implies that someone like me who disagrees with you is an "irresponsible gun owner" and I don't believe that to be the case.

Quote
Chris, honestly, I think I'm just kind of done with this discussion. Three responses from you to me, and in all three of them you are sarcastic and snarky toward me because of who you think I am. You seem to be incapable of having a conversation about this that doesn't involve mocking anyone who doesn't completely agree with you. Given that, why would I engage in the conversation at all? It's just setting myself up to be made fun of because I'm not as all-knowing as you.

That's fine, you are welcome to walk away. 

If I'm passionate and arrogant about this issue, I'm okay with that, given the amount of absolute garbage legislation passed by ignorant politicians catering to ignorant constituents who want "something done" on gun violence, whether or not that "something" makes any sense or will have any effect on the problem. 

Quite frankly, you can almost never go wrong underestimating the level of ignorance around firearms and firearms laws presented by people who want more laws governing them.  The other day I read a post on another board about someone insisting that we need to make a law preventing people from driving to Indiana, buying guns from their buddy, and driving back to Chicago and murdering people with it, all the while completely ignorant of the fact that there IS such a law already. 

So yes, I will own up to the fact that I assume anyone arguing for more gun legislation has no idea what they're talking about, given that most of the time, they don't.

Absolutely not. And therein lies your error, and the problem. You think in zero-sum absolutes, and that anyone who disagrees with you is touched in the head or an idiot, apparently. Since you think of yourself as a "responsible gun owner," and you yourself just said that means that I'm an irresponsible gun owner, then you are not someone who can be talked to or reasoned with.

No, I generally give the benefit of the doubt and think "well meaning but ignorant."  You want to talk to the real gun freaks (I'm a rank amateur) and they'll tell you it's because you ultimately desire to control me.  I give people more of the benefit of the doubt than that.

Also, I think you misunderstand my responsible versus irresponsible thing.  I believe you are a responsible gun owner based on your statements here.  I also believe you are more risk averse than I am. I therefore think that if you believe part of being a responsible gun owner is keeping the guns locked up, and I do not do that, you think I'm irresponsible. I don't, in turn, think that because I think I'm responsible it makes you irresponsible, I just think you're more risk averse.  Think of it as a sliding scale, on the scale of gun owners, you're a 2, and I'm a 5, and I think anything under, say, 7, is responsible.  I get the feeling you'd put that line more at a 2 or a 3.

Sigh. And there you go again, arguing with your straw man. I'm out. You don't need me for this conversation. You can go have it with the version of me you've created in your head.

Read my next post.  Tell me you didn't made a very specific statement that "if guns are locked up, they are controlled".  If I'm reacting to that, how can it be a strawman?  It's what you said.  If it isn't what you meant, then fine, but don't be mad when I react to what.  you.  said.

Oh, for God's sake.

If guns are locked up, that is ONE WAY of their being controlled.

Dude, I have three guns. None of them are locked up. I don't even have a gun safe.

Christ, is there ANY point in this conversation?

Why so hysterical? 

Yes, given what you say NOW, agreed, it's ONE WAY.

Do you see how, reading what you initially said, snark included, I interpreted that you meant it's the ONLY way and reacted accordingly?

No. No, I don't.

I mean, I see THAT you interpreted it that way. Not WHY you interpreted it that way. So don't try to once again shift the blame onto me for your erroneous interpretation, and your repeated failure to see that it was indeed erroneous.

Because someone who actually wanted a dialogue would have perhaps ASKED instead of presumed and stuffed words in my mouth repeatedly.

Or, perhaps READ what I said the FIRST time I said it was ONE WAY (see one of my posts above) and not the ONLY WAY instead of making me say it repeatedly because you seem much more invested in assuming you know what I think.

Or perhaps not used derogatory language and mockery all along the way in pretty much every single one of their responses.

Or perhaps acknowledged they had made erroneous assumptions -- hell, maybe even apologized -- when it was pointed out to them that I'm a gun owner and therefore actually do know a thing or two, or that I haven't actually proposed any laws here.

Or perhaps allowed me to be called a "responsible gun owner" instead of a gun grabber, instead of actually reserving that term for yourself because you apparently didn't think I had a right to call myself that unless I believed exactly what you do.

And then finally, when you FINALLY manage to understand what I have been trying to say all along, you call me "hysterical," and add just a pinch more of condescension to the mix.

Hilariously, you said to Malum that you tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. I'd say you've got a pretty heavy burden of proof on that, given the way you've treated me in this exchange.

« Last Edit: January 12, 2017, 10:57:35 AM by Kris »
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

MishMash

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 523
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1946 on: January 12, 2017, 10:56:21 AM »
Kris,

If you think standard gun "safes" are actually safe, you are sorely mistaken.  Our house was broken into a few years back, we had 3 of them, all bolted into the floor, or the wall.  Two smashed open with what the cops suspect was a sledgehammer, they took the third one with them by sheering off the stud it was connected to.  We've also had friends that have had whole gun safes stolen. 

We bought new ones, supposedly super secure, DH and I can both pick the locks on them in under a minute.  Most locks in general including those on gun safes are PURELY a psychological barrier to anyone that really wants in them. 

Only time we use them now is when we are gone on vacation and the neighbor child comes over to feed the cats.  Pretty much what you are saying is that I should be in jail because a criminal had the intent, and means to break into my home, and my safe, and violate MY privacy...but it's my fault because they weren't "secured" enough.  That is where your argument fails, you are affording more "rights" to the criminal then to the victim.

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2410
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1947 on: January 12, 2017, 10:59:40 AM »
Kris,

If you think standard gun "safes" are actually safe, you are sorely mistaken.  Our house was broken into a few years back, we had 3 of them, all bolted into the floor, or the wall.  Two smashed open with what the cops suspect was a sledgehammer, they took the third one with them by sheering off the stud it was connected to.  We've also had friends that have had whole gun safes stolen. 

We bought new ones, supposedly super secure, DH and I can both pick the locks on them in under a minute.  Most locks in general including those on gun safes are PURELY a psychological barrier to anyone that really wants in them. 

Only time we use them now is when we are gone on vacation and the neighbor child comes over to feed the cats.  Pretty much what you are saying is that I should be in jail because a criminal had the intent, and means to break into my home, and my safe, and violate MY privacy...but it's my fault because they weren't "secured" enough. That is where your argument fails, you are affording more "rights" to the criminal then to the victim.

Why is this comment being directed at me? When did I ever say that gun safes were "safe"?

Also, NO. I have absolutely no idea where you got the bolded part, but do NOT put words in my mouth that I have never said or even implied. I seriously have no idea how you got any of that out of anything I have said. Frankly, I would like an apology.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2017, 11:01:47 AM by Kris »
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Malum Prohibitum

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 666
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1948 on: January 12, 2017, 11:00:09 AM »
Our house was broken into a few years back, we had 3 of them, all bolted into the floor, or the wall.  Two smashed open with what the cops suspect was a sledgehammer, they took the third one with them by sheering off the stud it was connected to.  We've also had friends that have had whole gun safes stolen. 
  Sorry to hear that.  I know people to whom this has happened as well.

Malum Prohibitum

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 666
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1949 on: January 12, 2017, 11:01:08 AM »
Why is this comment being directed at me? When did I ever say that gun safes were "safe"?
  LOL!