Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 345935 times)

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1950 on: November 23, 2016, 04:59:55 AM »
well its not just women. I recently dated a guy who ended up being severely bothered by the fact that I own various firearms (obviously not dating any longer). Of course he was more "silly paranoid woman you don't need guns".  Sigh...can't win ;-). But I don't see men assuming their female SOs  don't like or want guns in the home as misogynist, as I assume it was something discussed and expressed already.

ETA no I wouldn't give up owning firearms if a potential SO required it. I woyld make some accommodations for him but that would be a deal breaker.

I am now picturing the look of shock on a person's face when they have to move a Glock and a shotgun to set the table for dinner. Open the fridge - fridge gun next to the salad.  Open the silverware drawer - extra magazines where the spoons go. Kabar in the knife block.  "Spatana, do you really need all of these!?"

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

MustacheMathTM

zolotiyeruki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1901
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1951 on: November 23, 2016, 07:38:50 AM »
well its not just women. I recently dated a guy who ended up being severely bothered by the fact that I own various firearms (obviously not dating any longer). Of course he was more "silly paranoid woman you don't need guns".  Sigh...can't win ;-). But I don't see men assuming their female SOs  don't like or want guns in the home as misogynist, as I assume it was something discussed and expressed already.

ETA no I wouldn't give up owning firearms if a potential SO required it. I woyld make some accommodations for him but that would be a deal breaker.

I am now picturing the look of shock on a person's face when they have to move a Glock and a shotgun to set the table for dinner. Open the fridge - fridge gun next to the salad.  Open the silverware drawer - extra magazines where the spoons go. Kabar in the knife block.  "Spatana, do you really need all of these!?"

:D
If you ever watched Psych, there's one episode where the head detective shoots a guy after pulling a gun out of a bowl of nuts on the kitchen counter.  It's hilarious, but I can't find a clip of it online.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2580
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1952 on: November 23, 2016, 07:41:31 AM »

I want to take a moment to just say that, as a woman, one thing that I've been very bothered by in the "gun community," if there is one, is the casual misogyny of "oh, you know, the wife doesn't understand my thing with guns, hahaha..." implying that "the wife" is somewhat clueless and irrational. In the gun classes I've taken, the instructors casually toss off this stuff, and the male students laugh knowingly. It's fucking irritating.

I'll mansplain it to you.  My wife looks at my gun hobby the same way I look at her purse/shoe/clothes/kitchen stuff habit, as "I don't get why someone wants to spend all that money on that crap."  It's got nothing to do with my wife being clueless and irrational and everything to do with she has different interests than I do, neither one of us sees the appeal in the others' spending.  We're fortunate that we're both mature adults and can agree on amount of spending and not give each other shit over our purchases assuming we adhere to the agreed amounts, but that still means she doesn't "understand." 

The other thing we had to overcome in our marriage early on is that we spend differently; I will basically buy nothing but things I need (food/gas) for months, but might go out and drop $500-1k 1-2x a year on something I want.  My wife would never spend that much at once, but would think nothing of spending $50-100 on whatever 2-3x a month.  So I see a constant stream of bags coming into the house and bitch about that, and she sees a single large purchase and bitches about that.  Once we figured out the spending pattern thing and got comfortable with it, and the fact that it doesn't affect our savings targets, we understood each others' shopping a lot better.

I really don't think there's misogyny, it's just simple men and women having different habits and hobbies. 
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

spartana

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3597
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1953 on: November 23, 2016, 08:38:30 AM »
well its not just women. I recently dated a guy who ended up being severely bothered by the fact that I own various firearms (obviously not dating any longer). Of course he was more "silly paranoid woman you don't need guns".  Sigh...can't win ;-). But I don't see men assuming their female SOs  don't like or want guns in the home as misogynist, as I assume it was something discussed and expressed already.

ETA no I wouldn't give up owning firearms if a potential SO required it. I woyld make some accommodations for him but that would be a deal breaker.

I am now picturing the look of shock on a person's face when they have to move a Glock and a shotgun to set the table for dinner. Open the fridge - fridge gun next to the salad.  Open the silverware drawer - extra magazines where the spoons go. Kabar in the knife block.  "Spatana, do you really need all of these!?"

:D
ha ha I see you've been to my house although you forgot about the speed loaders in the spice rack  ;-).  No fridge gun (something every girl needs) but a cute Prada gun purse and Jimmy Choo boots with the hidden holster maybe? No too cheap for that ;-).
Retired at 42 to play!

spartana

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3597
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1954 on: November 23, 2016, 08:49:54 AM »


I really don't think there's misogyny, it's just simple men and women having different habits and hobbies.
And its not even men and women having different hobbies and interests, its just people having different hobbies and interests and not understanding why the other person has the interests that they do. Personally I'd rather have a $500 gun than a $500 purse (or electronic doodad or fancy evening out or spa day or super bowl tickets or whatever) and I'd probably bitch about a partner or friend if they question my interests.
Retired at 42 to play!

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5186
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1955 on: November 23, 2016, 11:43:58 AM »


I really don't think there's misogyny, it's just simple men and women having different habits and hobbies.
And its not even men and women having different hobbies and interests, its just people having different hobbies and interests and not understanding why the other person has the interests that they do. Personally I'd rather have a $500 gun than a $500 purse (or electronic doodad or fancy evening out or spa day or super bowl tickets or whatever) and I'd probably bitch about a partner or friend if they question my interests.

It's accepting that we all have interests and that they differ.  $500 purse, no way.  $700 spinning wheel, sure.  And some interests mean lots of little purchases and some mean a few big purchases.

I think one of the advantages of really tracing spending is that the overall picture becomes clearer - if one is doing lots of little spends and one is doing a few big spends, at the end of the year they may have both spent about the same.  Same for separate fun accounts  you spend yours the way you want and I'll spend mine the way I want.

Dissing a partner for different priorities, on the other hand, isn't nice.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2580
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1956 on: November 23, 2016, 11:59:57 AM »


I really don't think there's misogyny, it's just simple men and women having different habits and hobbies.
And its not even men and women having different hobbies and interests, its just people having different hobbies and interests and not understanding why the other person has the interests that they do. Personally I'd rather have a $500 gun than a $500 purse (or electronic doodad or fancy evening out or spa day or super bowl tickets or whatever) and I'd probably bitch about a partner or friend if they question my interests.

It's accepting that we all have interests and that they differ.  $500 purse, no way.  $700 spinning wheel, sure.  And some interests mean lots of little purchases and some mean a few big purchases.

I think one of the advantages of really tracing spending is that the overall picture becomes clearer - if one is doing lots of little spends and one is doing a few big spends, at the end of the year they may have both spent about the same.  Same for separate fun accounts  you spend yours the way you want and I'll spend mine the way I want.

Dissing a partner for different priorities, on the other hand, isn't nice.

I also think there's the aspect that people might take this stuff a lot more seriously than it's intended.  If my wife ACTUALLY had a problem with a purchase I made, I probably wouldn't have made that purchase.  When I say she doesn't understand, what I mean is she rolled her eyes and said "that's stupid but do whatever you want."
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Drifterrider

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1957 on: November 25, 2016, 05:04:05 AM »
I still want a Rambo gun.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1958 on: November 25, 2016, 05:58:04 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.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

zolotiyeruki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1901
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1959 on: November 25, 2016, 07:33:22 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.
And that fact puts a big ol' silly grin on my face :)

Drifterrider

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1960 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 #1961 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: 623
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1962 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: 623
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1963 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: 2580
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1964 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

spartana

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3597
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1965 on: December 01, 2016, 06:07:02 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 :)
I think we had the same guy ;-). Rambo gun. To bad they wouldn't let me keep it when I got out.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2016, 08:14:29 AM by spartana »
Retired at 42 to play!

Kriegsspiel

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 994
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1966 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: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1967 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

spartana

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3597
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1968 on: December 02, 2016, 08:59:26 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.
Retired at 42 to play!

Malum Prohibitum

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 623
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1969 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: 2580
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1970 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: 623
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1971 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.

spartana

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3597
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1972 on: December 03, 2016, 08:43:46 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
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 ;-).
Retired at 42 to play!

zolotiyeruki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1901
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1973 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: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1974 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: 4107
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1975 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: 2580
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1976 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: 2157
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1977 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?
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

Tasty Pinecones

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 472
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1978 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: 2580
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1979 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: 4107
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1980 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: 2157
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1981 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.
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2580
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1982 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: 623
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1983 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: 2580
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1984 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: 623
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1985 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: 2157
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1986 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.
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2580
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1987 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: 2157
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1988 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 »
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2580
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1989 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: 2580
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1990 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: 623
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1991 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: 2157
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1992 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.
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

Malum Prohibitum

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 623
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1993 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: 623
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1994 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: 1901
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1995 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: 2580
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1996 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: 2157
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1997 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.
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2580
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1998 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: 2157
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1999 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.
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap