Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 394736 times)

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1950 on: January 12, 2017, 11:36:08 AM »

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.


Again,

I don't read this response as an opening to constructive dialogue.

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

And again, that was the opening snark salvo. 
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1951 on: January 12, 2017, 11:43:57 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.

Finally, common sense gun legislation
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2318
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1952 on: January 12, 2017, 11:45:25 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?

You're not quoting the whole thing. Your "all lonely" remark is pretty snarky (though not directed at me). So, my response, yes, was a little snarky as a response to your mocking tone toward Gin.

My point was, and still is, that yes, if your guns have a lock between them and other people, then they are "in your control" in a reasonable way. (Which was my whole point all along, I might add.)
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 #1953 on: January 12, 2017, 11:48:15 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?

You're not quoting the whole thing. Your "all lonely" remark is pretty snarky (though not directed at me). So, my response, yes, was a little snarky as a response to your mocking tone toward Gin.

My point was, and still is, that yes, if your guns have a lock between them and other people, then they are "in your control" in a reasonable way. (Which was my whole point all along, I might add.)

That's great, but do you see where your remark, tied up with the little snark "that's not so hard", seems to make no room for any other way?  Hence why we're in this debate?
"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: 2318
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1954 on: January 12, 2017, 11:58:39 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?

You're not quoting the whole thing. Your "all lonely" remark is pretty snarky (though not directed at me). So, my response, yes, was a little snarky as a response to your mocking tone toward Gin.

My point was, and still is, that yes, if your guns have a lock between them and other people, then they are "in your control" in a reasonable way. (Which was my whole point all along, I might add.)

That's great, but do you see where your remark, tied up with the little snark "that's not so hard", seems to make no room for any other way?  Hence why we're in this debate?

Not really, no, since I was responding to your specific question about your lonely guns with a pretty simple and specific answer about that particular situation (hence "that's not so hard").
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: 514
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1955 on: January 12, 2017, 12:27:42 PM »
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.

Kris, your general tone, outside of getting offended at what everyone says to you regardless of "Snark" (heck I didn't think Chris22 was snarky at all to you), has been that guns need to be locked up and "controlled" even in an individuals house.  I'm simply pointing out that safes, and standard locking mechanisms, don't do an iota of good if someone is intent on wanting access.  People aren't being irresponsible when they leave them in their house, they are simply exercising a different definition then you of what safe is.

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2318
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1956 on: January 12, 2017, 12:59:24 PM »
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.

Kris, your general tone, outside of getting offended at what everyone says to you regardless of "Snark" (heck I didn't think Chris22 was snarky at all to you), has been that guns need to be locked up and "controlled" even in an individuals house.  I'm simply pointing out that safes, and standard locking mechanisms, don't do an iota of good if someone is intent on wanting access.  People aren't being irresponsible when they leave them in their house, they are simply exercising a different definition then you of what safe is.

Saying that "tone" tells you something that my words never said is a pretty damn weak argument.

If you will go back through everything I have said, you will notice the following things:

1) I responded to Chris22's original question to Gin by saying that having guns "locked up" could be considered one reasonable example of "controlled". Not the only one. I would like to point out that I never said "locked in a gun safe". I actually never used the words "gun safe." I would consider that having a gun in a locked house when you aren't home is "locked" as well.

2) I never said the word "safe". That's your word. I used "controlled". They are different concepts. So your entire argument about whether a guns in a safe are "safe" is an argument you are having with someone other than me. Which is why I asked why you were addressing me.

3) And following from that, I never once said that someone who wanted access to a gun wouldn't be able to get to them if they were in a gun safe. Again, that's something you introduced. My point in saying that a gun is "controlled" if it's locked away when a gun owner isn't home was that I don't think a gun owner can be held responsible for someone accessing a gun if they break into his locked house. (Or his locked safe, for that matter.) Go through the thread. Read it again, with that in mind.

4) As I ALSO pointed out, I have three guns in my home. I also stated upthread that I do not own a gun safe, nor have I ever owned a gun safe. So can you please tell me how it is that I am saying that "People (are) being irresponsible when they leave them in their house" or arguing against that "they are simply exercising a different definition then you of what safe is" when I AM DOING EXACTLY THAT IN MY OWN HOUSE?

And on a similar note, can you please tell me, given that I have guns in my house and no gun safe, how it is that "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"?
« Last Edit: January 12, 2017, 01:02:34 PM 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 #1957 on: January 12, 2017, 01:19:12 PM »

1) I responded to Chris22's original question to Gin by saying that having guns "locked up" could be considered one reasonable example of "controlled". Not the only one.

Uh, no, that's not what you said.
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

MrAlanBreck

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • Family man.
    • Faith of our Fathers
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1958 on: January 12, 2017, 01:22:08 PM »

Christ, is there ANY point in this conversation?

Can't this just be solved in a gentlemanly fashion, like a duel?

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2318
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1959 on: January 12, 2017, 01:26:18 PM »

1) I responded to Chris22's original question to Gin by saying that having guns "locked up" could be considered one reasonable example of "controlled". Not the only one.

Uh, no, that's not what you said.

I will grant you, I did not use the word "one" in that particular post. But it is what I meant. And you'll remember that when you said they were locked up in your house, and asked whether that was enough, I said:

"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."

And in subsequent posts, I did indeed say more than once that having your guns locked up in a safe was one reasonable example of "controlled," but not the only one.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

KBecks

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 721
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1960 on: January 12, 2017, 01:29:10 PM »
My guns, my house, my rules, my comfort level.   It's called private property.

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2318
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1961 on: January 12, 2017, 01:34:53 PM »
My guns, my house, my rules, my comfort level.   It's called private property.

Yes, that's obvious. That's not the point. The point is having them in your control, so that, say, a three year-old can't get to them and shoot someone or themselves to death. That's what the idea of "controlled" means.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1134
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1962 on: January 12, 2017, 01:54:52 PM »
My guns, my house, my rules, my comfort level.   It's called private property.

Yes, that's obvious. That's not the point. The point is having them in your control, so that, say, a three year-old can't get to them and shoot someone or themselves to death. That's what the idea of "controlled" means.

That may be your idea of controlled, but I interpreted Gin's to involve gun safes/cabinets. 

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2318
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1963 on: January 12, 2017, 01:57:18 PM »
My guns, my house, my rules, my comfort level.   It's called private property.

Yes, that's obvious. That's not the point. The point is having them in your control, so that, say, a three year-old can't get to them and shoot someone or themselves to death. That's what the idea of "controlled" means.

That may be your idea of controlled, but I interpreted Gin's to involve gun safes/cabinets.

Okay. If so, that's Gin's idea. As far as I can tell, she hasn't been participating in this thread since I entered it. Maybe she will come back and clarify at some point.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1134
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1964 on: January 12, 2017, 02:02:42 PM »
My guns, my house, my rules, my comfort level.   It's called private property.

Yes, that's obvious. That's not the point. The point is having them in your control, so that, say, a three year-old can't get to them and shoot someone or themselves to death. That's what the idea of "controlled" means.

That may be your idea of controlled, but I interpreted Gin's to involve gun safes/cabinets.

Okay. If so, that's Gin's idea. As far as I can tell, she hasn't been participating in this thread since I entered it. Maybe she will come back and clarify at some point.

Kris - I haven't commented in this thread for quite some time.  Just pointing out how I perceived her comments which seem to be the spark of much of this discussion regarding storage requirements.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1965 on: January 12, 2017, 02:13:32 PM »
My guns, my house, my rules, my comfort level.   It's called private property.

Yes, that's obvious. That's not the point. The point is having them in your control, so that, say, a three year-old can't get to them and shoot someone or themselves to death. That's what the idea of "controlled" means.
Lock the 3 year old in a cabinet? ;-)!

Just watched the local news and an 18 year old kid just "invented" a Smart Gun using smart phone technology that only allows the owner or owners to fire it. Basic fingerprint ID stuff plus might be something for people with kids who don't want to unload, lock or store their firearms. As long as it wasn't a mandatory legal requirement to have all firearms be converted to smart guns.

 Personally, with no kids, I have one or two or sometimes 3 loaded all the time and don't store them. Although I do hide them as well as I can if I'm not home and with a ccw take one with me. I don't support laws that require mandatory storage or trigger locks.

If a "smart" gun is anything like the fingerprint reader on my iPhone, it will function correctly on the first time about 40% of the time.  And 0% of the time if your finger has any water or food or paint or whatever else on it.

No thanks.
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1134
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1966 on: January 12, 2017, 02:15:25 PM »
My guns, my house, my rules, my comfort level.   It's called private property.

Yes, that's obvious. That's not the point. The point is having them in your control, so that, say, a three year-old can't get to them and shoot someone or themselves to death. That's what the idea of "controlled" means.
Lock the 3 year old in a cabinet? ;-)!

Just watched the local news and an 18 year old kid just "invented" a Smart Gun using smart phone technology that only allows the owner or owners to fire it. Basic fingerprint ID stuff but might be something for people with kids who don't want to unload, lock or store their firearms. As long as it wasn't a mandatory legal requirement to have all firearms be converted to smart guns.

 Personally, with no kids, I have one or two or sometimes 3 loaded all the time and don't store them. Although I do hide them as well as I can if I'm not home and with a ccw take one with me. I don't support laws that require mandatory storage or trigger locks.

Spartana: 

Did you see the part of the article where the smart gun malfunctioned for the news crew?  Technology is not ready for prime time.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/smart-gun-fingerprint-reader-biofire-kai-kloepfer-pushback-firearm-community/

KBecks

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 721
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1967 on: January 12, 2017, 02:26:09 PM »
Ok, my house, my guns, my rules, my three year old.  I'll handle the safety in the way I see fit.

KBecks

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 721
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1968 on: January 12, 2017, 02:27:28 PM »
What makes you think that my home and property are not in my control?

KBecks

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 721
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1969 on: January 12, 2017, 02:29:34 PM »
And yes, 3 year olds are trouble!   It's not just guns ya worrry about.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1134
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1970 on: January 12, 2017, 02:30:50 PM »
Yeah I did (just watched it 5 minutes ago). Confirms Chris 22 fears. Personally I would never want one and think they are a bad idea for home or personal protection. But if you can turn off the finger print ID when you're home and turn it on when you're gone it might make sense fr some people who have kids or to prevent a thief from using it if its stolen.

I thought it was interesting the failure part was buried in the middle of the article (media bias).  If it failed for the news crew, I suspect the failure rate could be high. 

Given the ignorant (willful or intentional) positions taken by many gun control proponents, I"m sure someone will resurrect this idea as the solution to gun violence without mentioning the huge downside issues.

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2318
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1971 on: January 12, 2017, 02:34:14 PM »
My guns, my house, my rules, my comfort level.   It's called private property.

Yes, that's obvious. That's not the point. The point is having them in your control, so that, say, a three year-old can't get to them and shoot someone or themselves to death. That's what the idea of "controlled" means.
Lock the 3 year old in a cabinet? ;-)!

Just watched the local news and an 18 year old kid just "invented" a Smart Gun using smart phone technology that only allows the owner or owners to fire it. Basic fingerprint ID stuff but might be something for people with kids who don't want to unload, lock or store their firearms. As long as it wasn't a mandatory legal requirement to have all firearms be converted to smart guns.

 Personally, with no kids, I have one or two or sometimes 3 loaded all the time and don't store them. Although I do hide them as well as I can if I'm not home and with a ccw take one with me. I don't support laws that require mandatory storage or trigger locks.

I think Smart Gun technology seems like a good idea in theory as an option for people, but most people I've talked to who are NRA members -- and the NRA themselves -- are against any technology like that.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2017, 02:47:49 PM by Kris »
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1972 on: January 12, 2017, 02:54:42 PM »
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.

While locking up guns is indeed a good idea in general, legally requing people to do this would not be a good idea.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

KBecks

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 721
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1973 on: January 12, 2017, 03:03:35 PM »

I think Smart Gun technology seems like a good idea in theory as an option for people, but most people I've talked to who are NRA members -- and the NRA themselves -- are against any technology like that.

People can make the technology, but is there a market for it?  Not really. 

scottish

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 761
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1974 on: January 12, 2017, 03:33:37 PM »
Why are legal requirements for training and safe storage a bad idea?

Wouldn't secure storage go a long way to addressing the scenario where a young child finds an unsecured firearm and does a mischief?


Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1975 on: January 12, 2017, 03:59:32 PM »
And yes, 3 year olds are trouble!   It's not just guns ya worrry about.

I would vote for common sense toddler control laws.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1976 on: January 12, 2017, 04:01:55 PM »

I think Smart Gun technology seems like a good idea in theory as an option for people, but most people I've talked to who are NRA members -- and the NRA themselves -- are against any technology like that.

People can make the technology, but is there a market for it?  Not really.

There have been laws proposed that would require smart technology on all newly manufactured firearms. One of the reasons it got shot down was due to the technology not being reliable.  This is why the NRA does not support the technology; because they fear lawmakers will abuse it.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1977 on: January 12, 2017, 04:06:20 PM »
Why are legal requirements for training and safe storage a bad idea?

Wouldn't secure storage go a long way to addressing the scenario where a young child finds an unsecured firearm and does a mischief?

Because these laws would infringe upon people's freedom within their home, be generally unenforceable, infringe upon citizens second ammendment rights and have a negligible affect upon gun deaths or violent crime rates. 
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

scottish

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 761
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1978 on: January 12, 2017, 04:39:53 PM »
Yeah, they probably wouldn't work.   If you're a safety-conscious owner you do this anyway.   If you're not, the law won't convince you.

It'd just be another excuse for government to stick it's nose into your affairs.    (My view point is shifting to the right this year!)

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1201
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1979 on: January 12, 2017, 04:46:02 PM »
Yeah, they probably wouldn't work.   If you're a safety-conscious owner you do this anyway.   If you're not, the law won't convince you.

It'd just be another excuse for government to stick it's nose into your affairs.    (My view point is shifting to the right this year!)

I sort of agree, but I also think it's hyperbolic to say that requiring safety training somehow infringes on your rights in your own home. Requiring certain levels of security at home, of course, is far more problematic. It's a tired analogy, but I think the comparisons to driving are still apt. If you want to own a deadly weapon, I'm not sure it's infringing on your rights to ask that you get at lease some level of basic training on how to use it safely.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1980 on: January 12, 2017, 04:58:26 PM »
Yeah, they probably wouldn't work.   If you're a safety-conscious owner you do this anyway.   If you're not, the law won't convince you.

It'd just be another excuse for government to stick it's nose into your affairs.    (My view point is shifting to the right this year!)

I sort of agree, but I also think it's hyperbolic to say that requiring safety training somehow infringes on your rights in your own home. Requiring certain levels of security at home, of course, is far more problematic. It's a tired analogy, but I think the comparisons to driving are still apt. If you want to own a deadly weapon, I'm not sure it's infringing on your rights to ask that you get at lease some level of basic training on how to use it safely.

Because groups will use a safety training requirement as a backdoor ban. Want a gun in CA or IL or NYC?  That will be 40 hours of safety training provided by a state instructor who teaches 10 people per class, 1 class a year, for $1500 a person. What, you're against safety???
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1201
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1981 on: January 12, 2017, 05:35:13 PM »
Because groups will use a safety training requirement as a backdoor ban. Want a gun in CA or IL or NYC?  That will be 40 hours of safety training provided by a state instructor who teaches 10 people per class, 1 class a year, for $1500 a person. What, you're against safety???

At a certain point, overly onerous training requirements would certainly be unconstitutional. Personally, I don't care much either way. I don't think I'm particularly more likely to get shot because some morons don't bother to learn how to use their firearms. Their kids on the other hand... But I know everyone in this thread takes gun ownership seriously. It's just some things are actually a threat to freedom, while others are really not that big of a deal.

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2318
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1982 on: January 12, 2017, 05:42:18 PM »
Because groups will use a safety training requirement as a backdoor ban. Want a gun in CA or IL or NYC?  That will be 40 hours of safety training provided by a state instructor who teaches 10 people per class, 1 class a year, for $1500 a person. What, you're against safety???

At a certain point, overly onerous training requirements would certainly be unconstitutional. Personally, I don't care much either way. I don't think I'm particularly more likely to get shot because some morons don't bother to learn how to use their firearms. Their kids on the other hand... But I know everyone in this thread takes gun ownership seriously. It's just some things are actually a threat to freedom, while others are really not that big of a deal.

I definitely think a safety training requirement is a good idea. And it's my understanding that several states already do require safety training or an exam for gun purchase.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3608
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1983 on: January 12, 2017, 07:57:05 PM »
Because groups will use a safety training requirement as a backdoor ban. Want a gun in CA or IL or NYC?  That will be 40 hours of safety training provided by a state instructor who teaches 10 people per class, 1 class a year, for $1500 a person. What, you're against safety???

At a certain point, overly onerous training requirements would certainly be unconstitutional. Personally, I don't care much either way. I don't think I'm particularly more likely to get shot because some morons don't bother to learn how to use their firearms. Their kids on the other hand... But I know everyone in this thread takes gun ownership seriously. It's just some things are actually a threat to freedom, while others are really not that big of a deal.

I definitely think a safety training requirement is a good idea. And it's my understanding that several states already do require safety training or an exam for gun purchase.

Which states?

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2318
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1984 on: January 12, 2017, 08:11:55 PM »
Because groups will use a safety training requirement as a backdoor ban. Want a gun in CA or IL or NYC?  That will be 40 hours of safety training provided by a state instructor who teaches 10 people per class, 1 class a year, for $1500 a person. What, you're against safety???

At a certain point, overly onerous training requirements would certainly be unconstitutional. Personally, I don't care much either way. I don't think I'm particularly more likely to get shot because some morons don't bother to learn how to use their firearms. Their kids on the other hand... But I know everyone in this thread takes gun ownership seriously. It's just some things are actually a threat to freedom, while others are really not that big of a deal.

I definitely think a safety training requirement is a good idea. And it's my understanding that several states already do require safety training or an exam for gun purchase.

Which states?

Googling found me this.

http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/gun-owner-responsibilities/licensing-of-owners-purchasers/
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: 656
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1985 on: January 13, 2017, 07:39:24 AM »
I do not know where to find it now, but I recall seeing a study claiming states with training requirements had no statistical differences in accidents with firearms.

I do recall something from John Lott asserting that such states had negative (it was slight) effects on public safety overall, due to the disincentive to obtain a license to carry and the consequently lower number of persons carrying.

I have compared myself states that have training requirements to carry v. those that do not, and the percentage of adult license holders in the states that do not (e.g., Georgia) is much higher than states that do (e.g., Texas).  I have not personally done any research beyond that, and I am not sure I would be qualified (competent) to do any research beyond that.



UPDATE:  I just noticed y'all were discussing actually owning, not carrying.  I have not researched that issue at all.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2017, 07:41:19 AM by Malum Prohibitum »

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1986 on: January 13, 2017, 09:22:08 AM »
Because groups will use a safety training requirement as a backdoor ban. Want a gun in CA or IL or NYC?  That will be 40 hours of safety training provided by a state instructor who teaches 10 people per class, 1 class a year, for $1500 a person. What, you're against safety???

At a certain point, overly onerous training requirements would certainly be unconstitutional.

You've got to get to that point, which means someone has to waste time and money challenging it in a court, etc etc.


I'd also want to know what people are trying to solve with training.  On the surface, and if it could be perfectly implemented, I agree it seems like a good idea, but in reality, I am not sure what problem it solves, and again, I have serious doubts about implementation.  Personally I'll just continue to advocate people get their own training because they want to and it's a good idea, not because someone made them. 
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1987 on: January 13, 2017, 09:42:47 AM »
Yeah, they probably wouldn't work.   If you're a safety-conscious owner you do this anyway.   If you're not, the law won't convince you.

It'd just be another excuse for government to stick it's nose into your affairs.    (My view point is shifting to the right this year!)

It's not just the governmental intrusion; it also wouldn't prevent many deaths. There are just not that many accidental gun deaths in the home, compared to suicides and murders.  The burden would far outweigh the possible upside, much less the downsides.

The best way to implement a safety training program would be to teach it in public schools. This would reach everyone, be affordable and not a burden on the exercise of people's rights, and have the largest impact. It's not as if only gun owners need to know how to be safe around guns.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

darknight

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 54
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1988 on: January 13, 2017, 10:19:18 AM »
Yeah, they probably wouldn't work.   If you're a safety-conscious owner you do this anyway.   If you're not, the law won't convince you.

It'd just be another excuse for government to stick it's nose into your affairs.    (My view point is shifting to the right this year!)

It's not just the governmental intrusion; it also wouldn't prevent many deaths. There are just not that many accidental gun deaths in the home, compared to suicides and murders.  The burden would far outweigh the possible upside, much less the downsides.

The best way to implement a safety training program would be to teach it in public schools. This would reach everyone, be affordable and not a burden on the exercise of people's rights, and have the largest impact. It's not as if only gun owners need to know how to be safe around guns.

Agreed.
If people were actually concerned with deaths, they would take a look at the greatest killers.. like how about the 480,000 tobacco related deaths A YEAR in the U.S. (https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/)
It's a left side vs. right side issue that most people don't really think about. Left side say "you don't NEED guns". True(ish). Arguable. However, I invite anyone to argue the NEED for tobacco.

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2318
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1989 on: January 13, 2017, 04:05:28 PM »
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.

Kris, your general tone, outside of getting offended at what everyone says to you regardless of "Snark" (heck I didn't think Chris22 was snarky at all to you), has been that guns need to be locked up and "controlled" even in an individuals house.  I'm simply pointing out that safes, and standard locking mechanisms, don't do an iota of good if someone is intent on wanting access.  People aren't being irresponsible when they leave them in their house, they are simply exercising a different definition then you of what safe is.

Saying that "tone" tells you something that my words never said is a pretty damn weak argument.

If you will go back through everything I have said, you will notice the following things:

1) I responded to Chris22's original question to Gin by saying that having guns "locked up" could be considered one reasonable example of "controlled". Not the only one. I would like to point out that I never said "locked in a gun safe". I actually never used the words "gun safe." I would consider that having a gun in a locked house when you aren't home is "locked" as well.

2) I never said the word "safe". That's your word. I used "controlled". They are different concepts. So your entire argument about whether a guns in a safe are "safe" is an argument you are having with someone other than me. Which is why I asked why you were addressing me.

3) And following from that, I never once said that someone who wanted access to a gun wouldn't be able to get to them if they were in a gun safe. Again, that's something you introduced. My point in saying that a gun is "controlled" if it's locked away when a gun owner isn't home was that I don't think a gun owner can be held responsible for someone accessing a gun if they break into his locked house. (Or his locked safe, for that matter.) Go through the thread. Read it again, with that in mind.

4) As I ALSO pointed out, I have three guns in my home. I also stated upthread that I do not own a gun safe, nor have I ever owned a gun safe. So can you please tell me how it is that I am saying that "People (are) being irresponsible when they leave them in their house" or arguing against that "they are simply exercising a different definition then you of what safe is" when I AM DOING EXACTLY THAT IN MY OWN HOUSE?

And on a similar note, can you please tell me, given that I have guns in my house and no gun safe, how it is that "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"?

Still kinda waiting on a response to this.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1990 on: January 13, 2017, 10:52:38 PM »
Because groups will use a safety training requirement as a backdoor ban. Want a gun in CA or IL or NYC?  That will be 40 hours of safety training provided by a state instructor who teaches 10 people per class, 1 class a year, for $1500 a person. What, you're against safety???

At a certain point, overly onerous training requirements would certainly be unconstitutional. Personally, I don't care much either way. I don't think I'm particularly more likely to get shot because some morons don't bother to learn how to use their firearms. Their kids on the other hand... But I know everyone in this thread takes gun ownership seriously. It's just some things are actually a threat to freedom, while others are really not that big of a deal.

I definitely think a safety training requirement is a good idea. And it's my understanding that several states already do require safety training or an exam for gun purchase.

What makes you think that it is a good idea?
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2318
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1991 on: January 14, 2017, 08:33:27 AM »
Because groups will use a safety training requirement as a backdoor ban. Want a gun in CA or IL or NYC?  That will be 40 hours of safety training provided by a state instructor who teaches 10 people per class, 1 class a year, for $1500 a person. What, you're against safety???

At a certain point, overly onerous training requirements would certainly be unconstitutional. Personally, I don't care much either way. I don't think I'm particularly more likely to get shot because some morons don't bother to learn how to use their firearms. Their kids on the other hand... But I know everyone in this thread takes gun ownership seriously. It's just some things are actually a threat to freedom, while others are really not that big of a deal.

I definitely think a safety training requirement is a good idea. And it's my understanding that several states already do require safety training or an exam for gun purchase.

What makes you think that it is a good idea?

I think it's not a bad idea that a person get basic training in safe handling and operation of a handgun before a first purchase.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1992 on: January 14, 2017, 01:33:52 PM »
Do you think requiring someone to get training prior to purchase is a bad idea?

I think training is a good idea as well. But i don't think that requiring training is wise, unless it is publicly funded and part of our national education system.  Just like being knowledgeable of national policies and history is a good idea before one votes, i wouldn't suggest we require everyone to pass a test to vote.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5917
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1993 on: January 14, 2017, 03:25:35 PM »
Do you think requiring someone to get training prior to purchase is a bad idea?

I think training is a good idea as well. But i don't think that requiring training is wise, unless it is publicly funded and part of our national education system.  Just like being knowledgeable of national policies and history is a good idea before one votes, i wouldn't suggest we require everyone to pass a test to vote.

How did you get a driver's license?
The measure of civilization is how people treat one another.

http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/meetups-and-social-events/ontario's-own-camp-mustache-2017/ - MEET US THERE!

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3608
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1994 on: January 14, 2017, 03:40:06 PM »
Do you think requiring someone to get training prior to purchase is a bad idea?

I think training is a good idea as well. But i don't think that requiring training is wise, unless it is publicly funded and part of our national education system.  Just like being knowledgeable of national policies and history is a good idea before one votes, i wouldn't suggest we require everyone to pass a test to vote.

How did you get a driver's license?

Driving isn't a right, FWIW.

KBecks

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 721
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1995 on: January 14, 2017, 03:49:53 PM »
That's important to note -- here's the 2nd amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.



Here's where the issue is more of the states, who are trying to infringe on the citizens rights to keep and bear arms, than the federal government.  It's easy to see that mandatory training is an infringement on gun ownership and use. 

Training is a great idea, but it should be the choice of the individual.

Driving automobiles, is obviously not in the constitution, but the intention of the 2nd amendment is to protect freedom. 

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2318
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1996 on: January 14, 2017, 05:04:51 PM »
Do you think requiring someone to get training prior to purchase is a bad idea?


I see nothing wrong with requiring a basic gun safety course -- or some other equivalent, like a test proving you know those basics -- for a first purchase.

And yes, I'm well aware that that there are people who consider it an outrageous violation of their Second Amendment rights to ask that a person buying a gun for the first time have some basic gun safety knowledge.

I'm just not one of them.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

KBecks

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 721
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1997 on: January 14, 2017, 05:10:50 PM »
Ask, yes -- require with threat of fines, jail, etc., absolutely not.

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2318
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1998 on: January 14, 2017, 05:15:18 PM »
Ask, yes -- require with threat of fines, jail, etc., absolutely not.

As I said, I realize people think this is a big deal. I am not one of those people.

I'm not going to argue about it. Because I think it's kind of silly.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1999 on: January 14, 2017, 05:31:07 PM »
Do you think requiring someone to get training prior to purchase is a bad idea?

I think training is a good idea as well. But i don't think that requiring training is wise, unless it is publicly funded and part of our national education system.  Just like being knowledgeable of national policies and history is a good idea before one votes, i wouldn't suggest we require everyone to pass a test to vote.

How did you get a driver's license?

The lady at the DMV handed it to me.  I believe she got it from the printer from behind the counter. What's you're point?
« Last Edit: January 14, 2017, 05:38:13 PM by Metric Mouse »
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM