Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 345951 times)

spartana

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3597
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #200 on: March 03, 2016, 11:57:24 AM »
I am surprised that people will buy a gun for home protection before hardening their doors and windows against forced entry. Also, some people will open their door to talk to anyone that knocks.
Everybody knows not to show up at our house unannounced if they don't want to risk bodily harm (for the reason mentioned in a previous comment).
umm....you don't have to answer the door ya know and they'll just leave eventually. Can't see any reason you'd need to scare them off unless they were trying to break in. As a gun owner of multiple types of firearms in the home (and also a handgun when travelling) I've never had to use it to shoo anyone off my property - at least not someone who's knocking on my door innocently.
Not always the case. Hopefully it stops being an issue, but one apartment I lived at right out of college was apparently previously leased by somebody that was being looked for by two very large gentlemen. They weren't willing to leave just because I wasn't answering the door.


I guess if I had two large men hanging out at my front door and not leaving I'd call the cops. If they were trying  to break in I'd call the cops, remove myself to somewhere safe AND protect myself if needed. I'd do the same if they were stalking or harassing me. I don't care about protecting my house, car or stuff, just myself (or family) from assault or rape.
Retired at 42 to play!

Blonde Lawyer

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 548
    • My Student Loan Refi Story
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #201 on: March 03, 2016, 12:10:57 PM »
Midwest,

I think you misread my comment.  Last paragraph, don't want to go back to quote.  I'm not saying that your life is worth less than mine.  I'm saying that my personal experience made me rethink my stance on gun control laws.  Previously, when analyzing those laws I was considering the risk the average person faces of not very likely home invasion.  After my own experience, it made me realize that there are many people in this country that for whatever reason are targets.  I'm not saying just the targets should have access to guns.  I was saying it made me think that cooling off periods might not be as great as I thought they were.

I would love to see some kind of requirement that people have some firearm training.  It may not need to be to get the gun in the first place but it could be within a year of purchase.  Some minimum standards like being able to actually hit a target.  Not the bulls eye.  The silhouette.  I also totally underestimated the difficulty before I shot one myself.

But I also think everyone should have to re-certify on their driver test every so many years. 

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #202 on: March 03, 2016, 12:49:14 PM »
Midwest,

I think you misread my comment.  Last paragraph, don't want to go back to quote.  I'm not saying that your life is worth less than mine.  I'm saying that my personal experience made me rethink my stance on gun control laws.  Previously, when analyzing those laws I was considering the risk the average person faces of not very likely home invasion.  After my own experience, it made me realize that there are many people in this country that for whatever reason are targets.  I'm not saying just the targets should have access to guns.  I was saying it made me think that cooling off periods might not be as great as I thought they were.

I would love to see some kind of requirement that people have some firearm training.  It may not need to be to get the gun in the first place but it could be within a year of purchase.  Some minimum standards like being able to actually hit a target.  Not the bulls eye.  The silhouette.  I also totally underestimated the difficulty before I shot one myself.

But I also think everyone should have to re-certify on their driver test every so many years.

Thanks for the clarification.  I certainly didn't mean to insult your experience.

I don't think training should be required for purchase (constitutional issues).  For concealed carry, I think a training requirement is an excellent idea.  Personally, I took the concealed carry course primarily to improve my skills/knowledge (carried a gun 1x in 5 years).

To make an car analogy, you can buy a car w/o a license but you need a license to drive on public streets.

« Last Edit: March 03, 2016, 12:50:49 PM by Midwest »

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4751
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #203 on: March 03, 2016, 01:06:22 PM »
I don't think training should be required for purchase (constitutional issues).

Of the entire universe of possible "regulations" on private gun ownership, mandatory marksmanship training would be the least Constitutionally-problematic. The key is to realize that, at the time of writing, the phrase "a well-regulated militia" meant one that was well-trained.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #204 on: March 03, 2016, 02:17:43 PM »

My grandfather also had an old shotgun with an 8 in barrel.  He might have had paperwork for it, but I never found it.  I didn't realize what it was until after I brought all the guns home, going through 4 states, I thought it was an old pistol.  If I had paperwork for it, it would have been his most valuable one, but I turned it into the police.

It was a pistol, if it was manufactured with a barrel less than 12 inches, and had a pistol grip; it only become class II if it was originally manufactured & sold with a barrel longer than 18.5 inches.  Shotgun pistols are still made & sold as normal handguns; that is what the Bond Arms' entire line is based upon, and the Taurus Judge 410 revolver also.  And if it was a .410 single shot break action, it was probably worth a fortune.  That gun is probably in some cop's safe, now.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #205 on: March 04, 2016, 01:04:24 AM »

Fair enough, I wasn't aware that records are supposed to be kept by retailers.  That obviously makes it tough to find bad dealers.

So, if there's already a gun registry . . . why the requirement that it be so shitty that it's hard to find and stop straw purchases?  Wading through millions of handwritten records would seem to hamstring law enforcement.  A central searchable database would be sensible, no?

Arguing that there should be better enforcement, while refusing to address the cause of poor enforcement seems disingenuous.

This is why the gun control debate goes no where - it takes so much time to make up ground with people who don't know the current laws that it's impossible to make progress.

Current laws already require all firearms to be tracked from the manufacturer to the dealer, and from the dealer to the customer they sold it to. It's not really 'searchable' in the way you mean, but with two phone calls the police can find out who owns the gun they found at a crime scene.

Current law already forbids selling any firearm to someone you know to be, or suspect to be, unable to legally possess that weapon. So if you think a person who will go illegally buy a gun for their felon friend will then privately register that they illegally transferred that weapon to their felon friend, I would ask why in the world you would think that? This is why educated people stress enforcing current laws, rather than adding new laws (or recreating laws that already exist, like not being able to buy guns illegal in your home state in the state next to you - already a law)



But none of this applies to the OP's question - why should any of this affect me having a weapon in my house?
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

JordanOfGilead

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 339
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #206 on: March 04, 2016, 06:23:51 AM »
I am surprised that people will buy a gun for home protection before hardening their doors and windows against forced entry. Also, some people will open their door to talk to anyone that knocks.
Everybody knows not to show up at our house unannounced if they don't want to risk bodily harm (for the reason mentioned in a previous comment).
umm....you don't have to answer the door ya know and they'll just leave eventually. Can't see any reason you'd need to scare them off unless they were trying to break in. As a gun owner of multiple types of firearms in the home (and also a handgun when travelling) I've never had to use it to shoo anyone off my property - at least not someone who's knocking on my door innocently.
Not always the case. Hopefully it stops being an issue, but one apartment I lived at right out of college was apparently previously leased by somebody that was being looked for by two very large gentlemen. They weren't willing to leave just because I wasn't answering the door.


I guess if I had two large men hanging out at my front door and not leaving I'd call the cops. If they were trying  to break in I'd call the cops, remove myself to somewhere safe AND protect myself if needed. I'd do the same if they were stalking or harassing me. I don't care about protecting my house, car or stuff, just myself (or family) from assault or rape.
I don't think you understand how criminals that use intimidation tactics work ... You call the cops, the cops ask them to leave, they go away and wait for the cops to leave, then come back and f*ck your sh!t up because you called the cops on them, whether or not they originally had a problem with you.
Also, the police in that neighborhood weren't interested in quickly responding to much less than a shooting. Like I said, it was my first apartment out of college, so it wasn't in a great area and it was dirt cheap.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2580
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #207 on: March 04, 2016, 06:35:52 AM »
Again . . . now we're entering into discussion about the specifics and details of gun control implementation.  There's an awful lot to discuss in this area.  By no longer pretending that people interested in gun control want to ban all guns, a dialog can be started.

The problem with this "we're not looking to ban all guns" argument is that what people are doing with handgun bans/limitations is restricting what people can practically use as a defensive weapon.  Gun control advocates (GCAs) point out "you can still have a gun for hunting or target shooting" and whatnot, but what I really want is to have a weapon I can carry to defend myself, if I decide to do so.  The only practical tool for that application is a hand gun.  So if you take handguns away, which is absolutely the goal of many GCAs, and has been done (mostly if not completely) in many places outside the US, you are saying "sure, you can have a gun, but you will not have the ability to use it to defend yourself".  Which is what most people who oppose gun control want.

To frame it in a way that may be more relevant to you, it would be like saying we're going to ban all bikes except for single-speed models.  You might say, well, I commute by bike, and I live in a hilly area, it's not practical for me to use a fixed gear bike for commuting.  And I might say "well I'm not banning all bikes, you can still keep your fixed gear bike for the BMX track or the bike path down by the lake." 

That is what GCAs are effectively doing, they're going to "allow me" to own a gun, but it's a gun that's not useful to me in most of the situations I want to use it, so it is effectively a ban without actually being one. 
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #208 on: March 04, 2016, 06:37:23 AM »

Fair enough, I wasn't aware that records are supposed to be kept by retailers.  That obviously makes it tough to find bad dealers.

So, if there's already a gun registry . . . why the requirement that it be so shitty that it's hard to find and stop straw purchases?  Wading through millions of handwritten records would seem to hamstring law enforcement.  A central searchable database would be sensible, no?

Arguing that there should be better enforcement, while refusing to address the cause of poor enforcement seems disingenuous.

This is why the gun control debate goes no where - it takes so much time to make up ground with people who don't know the current laws that it's impossible to make progress.

Current laws already require all firearms to be tracked from the manufacturer to the dealer, and from the dealer to the customer they sold it to. It's not really 'searchable' in the way you mean, but with two phone calls the police can find out who owns the gun they found at a crime scene.

That is the happy path. It depends upon the gun dealer keeping excellent, easily accessible records and being willing to share that information over the phone. It would be interesting to know how often such a simple phone transaction provides the information sought after. Even if they can get the information about gun XYZ over the phone, there is no way anyone can do comprehensive data mining to look for patterns that might reveal which dealers and individuals are connected with guns that seem to end up at crime scenes.
spent on gun studies. That would be possible with an electronic registry, but no, in an age in which our comprehensive medical history, credit history, voting history and almost every other piece of information is kept in electronic format, guns records haven't evolved any further than gutenberg.


Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2580
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #209 on: March 04, 2016, 06:43:17 AM »
I was reading the contingency planning thread, and I realized that some of the posters feel the need to keep firearms in their house for protection.   I'm really not trolling, I'd like to understand your point of view better, because this seems foreign to me.

1.   Why don't you move to a less dangerous area?    It can't be much fun, being constantly on edge that someone is going to invade your house or assault you on the street.

2.  Do you regularly practice with your firearm?   (I used to shoot cans with a .22 when I was a kid, but that's about the limit of my experience.   When I eventually FIRE, I'd like to try some practical shooting if I can find a good range.   But I don't have time for another hobby right now.)

3.  If you have children or a spouse, how have you trained them to stay out of the way if there's an incident?  i.e. so they don't get shot?

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

For the record, we don't have any firearms in the house.   In fact, DW can't stand them, so we're not likely to anytime soon.

1.  My area is very safe, but anything can happen anywhere.  To me, this is like asking why I don't remove fire hazards in my house instead of buying an extinguisher.

2.  Yes.  Skeet, plinking in the woods, time at the range, etc.

3.  Our bedrooms are at the back of the 2nd floor, rare that the threat would be there, so my wife would care for our daughter in the back of the house, and I would guard the stairs in the front which gives me an open firing lane to ~80% of the main floor. 

4.  "I was in fear for my life [and that of my family if applicable] and I fired until I believed the threat was gone.  I am very upset right now and would not like to say anything else without my lawyer present."  I do not personally believe I would be arrested, even in liberal Cook County, for using a firearm against someone who illegally entered my home, but if that happened, so be it.  Given the layout of my house, there is no place to retreat to, so if someone was coming up the stairs, I believe I have a very compelling argument that I am in fear for my life.  Also, the guy across the street is a detective in our local PD, every reason to think he'd have my back unless I was doing something completely stupid, like shoot someone who was not inside my house.
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #210 on: March 04, 2016, 06:49:42 AM »
Again . . . now we're entering into discussion about the specifics and details of gun control implementation.  There's an awful lot to discuss in this area.  By no longer pretending that people interested in gun control want to ban all guns, a dialog can be started.

The problem with this "we're not looking to ban all guns" argument is that what people are doing with handgun bans/limitations is restricting what people can practically use as a defensive weapon.  Gun control advocates (GCAs) point out "you can still have a gun for hunting or target shooting" and whatnot, but what I really want is to have a weapon I can carry to defend myself, if I decide to do so.  The only practical tool for that application is a hand gun.  So if you take handguns away, which is absolutely the goal of many GCAs, and has been done (mostly if not completely) in many places outside the US, you are saying "sure, you can have a gun, but you will not have the ability to use it to defend yourself".  Which is what most people who oppose gun control want.

I think you may be painting too broad a picture regarding the aim of people who support gun control of one type or another. But let's say that is true. Then it works both ways. Gun advocates want to be able to take concealed hand guns everywhere - movie theaters, classrooms, etc. Here in Kansas, a paranoid nut accidentally shot a woman in a movie theater with his concealed handgun. In a nearby town, an idiot city council member had his concealed gun accidentally fall to the ground in the middle of a council meeting. Our Universities are being forced to allow students to take guns with them into classrooms. Guns are lethal weapons and by their very nature are intimidating. The fact that so many people now seem to be carrying concealed guns and that I could get hurt or even be killed if I happen to be around an idiot who screws up or someone with anger issues infringes on MY personal safety. You say that YOU want to feel safe. Well, I want to feel safe too and unfortunately the very thing that makes YOU FEEL SAFE makes ME FEEL UNSAFE. Am I crazy that I think that I have just as much right to feel safe as you do?

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2580
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #211 on: March 04, 2016, 06:55:21 AM »
Again . . . now we're entering into discussion about the specifics and details of gun control implementation.  There's an awful lot to discuss in this area.  By no longer pretending that people interested in gun control want to ban all guns, a dialog can be started.

The problem with this "we're not looking to ban all guns" argument is that what people are doing with handgun bans/limitations is restricting what people can practically use as a defensive weapon.  Gun control advocates (GCAs) point out "you can still have a gun for hunting or target shooting" and whatnot, but what I really want is to have a weapon I can carry to defend myself, if I decide to do so.  The only practical tool for that application is a hand gun.  So if you take handguns away, which is absolutely the goal of many GCAs, and has been done (mostly if not completely) in many places outside the US, you are saying "sure, you can have a gun, but you will not have the ability to use it to defend yourself".  Which is what most people who oppose gun control want.

I think you may be painting too broad a picture regarding the aim of people who support gun control of one type or another. But let's say that is true. Then it works both ways. Gun advocates want to be able to take concealed hand guns everywhere - movie theaters, classrooms, etc. Here in Kansas, a paranoid nut accidentally shot a woman in a movie theater with his concealed handgun. In a nearby town, an idiot city council member had his concealed gun accidentally fall to the ground in the middle of a council meeting. Our Universities are being forced to allow students to take guns with them into classrooms. Guns are lethal weapons and by their very nature are intimidating. The fact that so many people now seem to be carrying concealed guns and that I could get hurt or even be killed if I happen to be around an idiot who screws up or someone with anger issues infringes on MY personal safety. You say that YOU want to feel safe. Well, I want to feel safe too and unfortunately the very thing that makes YOU FEEL SAFE makes ME FEEL UNSAFE. Am I crazy that I think that I have just as much right to feel safe as you do?

Not to be an ass, but...yes.  I have an inherent right, as spelled out in the 2nd amendment, to bear arms.  You do not have any inherent right to not be around someone who is bearing arms.  No one has a right to "feel" this or not "feel" that. 
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #212 on: March 04, 2016, 07:05:24 AM »
Again . . . now we're entering into discussion about the specifics and details of gun control implementation.  There's an awful lot to discuss in this area.  By no longer pretending that people interested in gun control want to ban all guns, a dialog can be started.

The problem with this "we're not looking to ban all guns" argument is that what people are doing with handgun bans/limitations is restricting what people can practically use as a defensive weapon.  Gun control advocates (GCAs) point out "you can still have a gun for hunting or target shooting" and whatnot, but what I really want is to have a weapon I can carry to defend myself, if I decide to do so.  The only practical tool for that application is a hand gun.  So if you take handguns away, which is absolutely the goal of many GCAs, and has been done (mostly if not completely) in many places outside the US, you are saying "sure, you can have a gun, but you will not have the ability to use it to defend yourself".  Which is what most people who oppose gun control want.

I think you may be painting too broad a picture regarding the aim of people who support gun control of one type or another. But let's say that is true. Then it works both ways. Gun advocates want to be able to take concealed hand guns everywhere - movie theaters, classrooms, etc. Here in Kansas, a paranoid nut accidentally shot a woman in a movie theater with his concealed handgun. In a nearby town, an idiot city council member had his concealed gun accidentally fall to the ground in the middle of a council meeting. Our Universities are being forced to allow students to take guns with them into classrooms. Guns are lethal weapons and by their very nature are intimidating. The fact that so many people now seem to be carrying concealed guns and that I could get hurt or even be killed if I happen to be around an idiot who screws up or someone with anger issues infringes on MY personal safety. You say that YOU want to feel safe. Well, I want to feel safe too and unfortunately the very thing that makes YOU FEEL SAFE makes ME FEEL UNSAFE. Am I crazy that I think that I have just as much right to feel safe as you do?

Interesting - by your own description, we have a "paranoid nut" and an "idiot" causing the problem here. The common denominator is not the gun.

If anything, you should feel safer. Link:
Quote
Since 2007, the number of concealed handgun permits has soared from 4.6 million to over 12.8 million, and murder rates have fallen from 5.6 killings per 100,000 people to just 4.2, about a 25 percent drop, according to the report from the Crime Prevention Research Center.

However, since "guns are intimidating", you have the emotional reaction to feel unsafe, instead of the logical reaction to see what the actual outcome is.  That is a huge problem, IMO -- people want knee-jerk gun control, which is not fair or thought out properly. They want to "feel safe" without regard to fact.

Let's try this:
Quote
I think you may be painting too broad a picture regarding the aim of people who support car control of one type or another. But let's say that is true. Then it works both ways. Car advocates want to be able to take 4000lb killing machines everywhere - to the movie theaters, schools, etc. In Colorado, an elderly person accidentally ran over and killed a pedestrian in a WalMart parking lot. In Las Vegas, a woman ran down dozens of people on the sidewalk, killing one of them. Our Universities are being forced to allow students to drive their own cars to school.  Cars can be lethal weapons and by their very nature are intimidating. The fact that so many people now seem to be be driving cars that I could get hurt or even be killed if I happen to be around an idiot who screws up or someone with anger issues infringes on MY personal safety. You say that YOU want to feel safe. Well, I want to feel safe too and unfortunately the very thing that makes YOU FEEL SAFE makes ME FEEL UNSAFE. Am I crazy that I think that I have just as much right to feel safe as you do?
And let me remind you that driving is a privilege, not a right. ;)

BeginnerStache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 725
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #213 on: March 04, 2016, 07:16:01 AM »

Fair enough, I wasn't aware that records are supposed to be kept by retailers.  That obviously makes it tough to find bad dealers.

So, if there's already a gun registry . . . why the requirement that it be so shitty that it's hard to find and stop straw purchases?  Wading through millions of handwritten records would seem to hamstring law enforcement.  A central searchable database would be sensible, no?

Arguing that there should be better enforcement, while refusing to address the cause of poor enforcement seems disingenuous.

This is why the gun control debate goes no where - it takes so much time to make up ground with people who don't know the current laws that it's impossible to make progress.

Current laws already require all firearms to be tracked from the manufacturer to the dealer, and from the dealer to the customer they sold it to. It's not really 'searchable' in the way you mean, but with two phone calls the police can find out who owns the gun they found at a crime scene.

That is the happy path. It depends upon the gun dealer keeping excellent, easily accessible records and being willing to share that information over the phone. It would be interesting to know how often such a simple phone transaction provides the information sought after. Even if they can get the information about gun XYZ over the phone, there is no way anyone can do comprehensive data mining to look for patterns that might reveal which dealers and individuals are connected with guns that seem to end up at crime scenes.
spent on gun studies. That would be possible with an electronic registry, but no, in an age in which our comprehensive medical history, credit history, voting history and almost every other piece of information is kept in electronic format, guns records haven't evolved any further than gutenberg.

Yep, and actual studies, per the ATF, have determined that this lack electronic recordkeeping actually hinders investigations. Making phone calls, pouring over hundreds if not thousands of hand written "records" often times takes weeks and months.

The bolded part is why I don't understand why folks opposed to electronic record keeping (centered around weapons)  seem to be ok with every other aspect of their personal lives stashed away in electronic format. 

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #214 on: March 04, 2016, 07:19:31 AM »
Again . . . now we're entering into discussion about the specifics and details of gun control implementation.  There's an awful lot to discuss in this area.  By no longer pretending that people interested in gun control want to ban all guns, a dialog can be started.

The problem with this "we're not looking to ban all guns" argument is that what people are doing with handgun bans/limitations is restricting what people can practically use as a defensive weapon.  Gun control advocates (GCAs) point out "you can still have a gun for hunting or target shooting" and whatnot, but what I really want is to have a weapon I can carry to defend myself, if I decide to do so.  The only practical tool for that application is a hand gun.  So if you take handguns away, which is absolutely the goal of many GCAs, and has been done (mostly if not completely) in many places outside the US, you are saying "sure, you can have a gun, but you will not have the ability to use it to defend yourself".  Which is what most people who oppose gun control want.

I think you may be painting too broad a picture regarding the aim of people who support gun control of one type or another. But let's say that is true. Then it works both ways. Gun advocates want to be able to take concealed hand guns everywhere - movie theaters, classrooms, etc. Here in Kansas, a paranoid nut accidentally shot a woman in a movie theater with his concealed handgun. In a nearby town, an idiot city council member had his concealed gun accidentally fall to the ground in the middle of a council meeting. Our Universities are being forced to allow students to take guns with them into classrooms. Guns are lethal weapons and by their very nature are intimidating. The fact that so many people now seem to be carrying concealed guns and that I could get hurt or even be killed if I happen to be around an idiot who screws up or someone with anger issues infringes on MY personal safety. You say that YOU want to feel safe. Well, I want to feel safe too and unfortunately the very thing that makes YOU FEEL SAFE makes ME FEEL UNSAFE. Am I crazy that I think that I have just as much right to feel safe as you do?

Not to be an ass, but...yes.  I have an inherent right, as spelled out in the 2nd amendment, to bear arms.  You do not have any inherent right to not be around someone who is bearing arms.  No one has a right to "feel" this or not "feel" that.

I respectively disagree with the notion that the 2nd amendment's right to bear arms guarantees that my own safety must be put at risk merely because a person in a low crime community with absolutely no expectation that they are the targets of violence feel they MUST carry a gun with them EVERYWHERE to feel safe.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #215 on: March 04, 2016, 07:27:12 AM »
Let's try this:
Quote
I think you may be painting too broad a picture regarding the aim of people who support car control of one type or another. But let's say that is true. Then it works both ways. Car advocates want to be able to take 4000lb killing machines everywhere - to the movie theaters, schools, etc. In Colorado, an elderly person accidentally ran over and killed a pedestrian in a WalMart parking lot. In Las Vegas, a woman ran down dozens of people on the sidewalk, killing one of them. Our Universities are being forced to allow students to drive their own cars to school.  Cars can be lethal weapons and by their very nature are intimidating. The fact that so many people now seem to be be driving cars that I could get hurt or even be killed if I happen to be around an idiot who screws up or someone with anger issues infringes on MY personal safety. You say that YOU want to feel safe. Well, I want to feel safe too and unfortunately the very thing that makes YOU FEEL SAFE makes ME FEEL UNSAFE. Am I crazy that I think that I have just as much right to feel safe as you do?
And let me remind you that driving is a privilege, not a right. ;)



A gun is a weapon, not a tool.  It's designed to facilitate killing.  You can use it for target practice (learning to kill better), you can use it for hunting (killing animals), or you can use it for defense (killing people, or as a method of intimidation that you might kill them).  Pretty much any other usage (opening cans, turning off the TV) is improper usage.  It's primary function is to make killing easier.

This is fundamentally very different than a car, or baseball cards.  Yes, things other than guns can be dangerous or cause death . . . but there is utility that they provide that goes above and beyond killing.  That does not exist with a gun.  These comparisons to a car or to baseball cars are disingenuous.

Fishindude

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1236
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #216 on: March 04, 2016, 07:27:39 AM »
I respectively disagree with the notion that the 2nd amendment's right to bear arms guarantees that my own safety must be put at risk merely because a person in a low crime community with absolutely no expectation that they are the targets of violence feel they MUST carry a gun with them EVERYWHERE to feel safe.

This thread is really going round & round.
How does someone carrying put your safety at risk?
It could be argued that you might actually be safer when in the vicinity of someone carrying. There are about a dozen stories every month in the American Rifleman magazine that show how legally armed citizens used their firearms to save lives and thwart crimes.  The general media doesn't share these stories. 

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2580
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #217 on: March 04, 2016, 07:30:57 AM »
I respectively disagree with the notion that the 2nd amendment's right to bear arms guarantees that my own safety must be put at risk merely because a person in a low crime community with absolutely no expectation that they are the targets of violence feel they MUST carry a gun with them EVERYWHERE to feel safe.

I mean, okay, you can believe whatever you want, but do you also believe your right to protest [free speech] is predicated upon having a gripe someone else feels is legitimate? 
"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 #218 on: March 04, 2016, 07:32:42 AM »

The bolded part is why I don't understand why folks opposed to electronic record keeping (centered around weapons)  seem to be ok with every other aspect of their personal lives stashed away in electronic format.

Generally speaking, I'll bet they aren't.  Us right wing nutjobs don't really like centralized databases on anything ;)

There are also cases like this:  http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/
"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 #219 on: March 04, 2016, 07:33:45 AM »
These comparisons to a car or to baseball cars are disingenuous.

I know, right?  I mean, no one has a Constitutional right to cars or baseball cards.  :)
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #220 on: March 04, 2016, 07:35:48 AM »
Again . . . now we're entering into discussion about the specifics and details of gun control implementation.  There's an awful lot to discuss in this area.  By no longer pretending that people interested in gun control want to ban all guns, a dialog can be started.

The problem with this "we're not looking to ban all guns" argument is that what people are doing with handgun bans/limitations is restricting what people can practically use as a defensive weapon.  Gun control advocates (GCAs) point out "you can still have a gun for hunting or target shooting" and whatnot, but what I really want is to have a weapon I can carry to defend myself, if I decide to do so.  The only practical tool for that application is a hand gun.  So if you take handguns away, which is absolutely the goal of many GCAs, and has been done (mostly if not completely) in many places outside the US, you are saying "sure, you can have a gun, but you will not have the ability to use it to defend yourself".  Which is what most people who oppose gun control want.

I think you may be painting too broad a picture regarding the aim of people who support gun control of one type or another. But let's say that is true. Then it works both ways. Gun advocates want to be able to take concealed hand guns everywhere - movie theaters, classrooms, etc. Here in Kansas, a paranoid nut accidentally shot a woman in a movie theater with his concealed handgun. In a nearby town, an idiot city council member had his concealed gun accidentally fall to the ground in the middle of a council meeting. Our Universities are being forced to allow students to take guns with them into classrooms. Guns are lethal weapons and by their very nature are intimidating. The fact that so many people now seem to be carrying concealed guns and that I could get hurt or even be killed if I happen to be around an idiot who screws up or someone with anger issues infringes on MY personal safety. You say that YOU want to feel safe. Well, I want to feel safe too and unfortunately the very thing that makes YOU FEEL SAFE makes ME FEEL UNSAFE. Am I crazy that I think that I have just as much right to feel safe as you do?

Interesting - by your own description, we have a "paranoid nut" and an "idiot" causing the problem here. The common denominator is not the gun.

Unfortunately, gun control opponents seem to be against any restrictions that could prevent paranoid nuts and idiots from being able to carry concealed weapons.

If anything, you should feel safer. Link:
Quote
Since 2007, the number of concealed handgun permits has soared from 4.6 million to over 12.8 million, and murder rates have fallen from 5.6 killings per 100,000 people to just 4.2, about a 25 percent drop, according to the report from the Crime Prevention Research Center.

Murder and crime rates have been falling for decades. There have been multiple explanations advanced for this, including the elimination of lead in paint. The fact the concealed gun permits have increased during a time period that murder rates have fallen does not in and of itself prove that the former is the cause of the latter.

However, since "guns are intimidating", you have the emotional reaction to feel unsafe, instead of the logical reaction to see what the actual outcome is.  That is a huge problem, IMO -- people want knee-jerk gun control, which is not fair or thought out properly. They want to "feel safe" without regard to fact.

Yes, it is an emotional argument. No less emotional and knee jerk than those who argue that they need to carry guns with them everywhere to defend themselves when crime rates are at all time lows. Yes, there are people who do live in a dangerous community or have a legitimate risk of targeted violence, but a good many people do not.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #221 on: March 04, 2016, 07:35:58 AM »
I respectively disagree with the notion that the 2nd amendment's right to bear arms guarantees that my own safety must be put at risk merely because a person in a low crime community with absolutely no expectation that they are the targets of violence feel they MUST carry a gun with them EVERYWHERE to feel safe.

This thread is really going round & round.
How does someone carrying put your safety at risk?
It could be argued that you might actually be safer when in the vicinity of someone carrying. There are about a dozen stories every month in the American Rifleman magazine that show how legally armed citizens used their firearms to save lives and thwart crimes.  The general media doesn't share these stories.

Your argument might actually be true if we assume that all gun owners are well-trained and safety conscious.  A great many of them are.

http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/

^ 58 US shootings by toddlers in 2015 gives a small slice of the ample evidence that a sizable minority of owners fail to take the safety of others into consideration though.  These are the people who those interested in gun control want to control via better regulation, rules about gun safety, rules about gun storage, etc.

BeginnerStache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 725
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #222 on: March 04, 2016, 07:38:28 AM »
Again . . . now we're entering into discussion about the specifics and details of gun control implementation.  There's an awful lot to discuss in this area.  By no longer pretending that people interested in gun control want to ban all guns, a dialog can be started.

The problem with this "we're not looking to ban all guns" argument is that what people are doing with handgun bans/limitations is restricting what people can practically use as a defensive weapon.  Gun control advocates (GCAs) point out "you can still have a gun for hunting or target shooting" and whatnot, but what I really want is to have a weapon I can carry to defend myself, if I decide to do so.  The only practical tool for that application is a hand gun.  So if you take handguns away, which is absolutely the goal of many GCAs, and has been done (mostly if not completely) in many places outside the US, you are saying "sure, you can have a gun, but you will not have the ability to use it to defend yourself".  Which is what most people who oppose gun control want.

I think you may be painting too broad a picture regarding the aim of people who support gun control of one type or another. But let's say that is true. Then it works both ways. Gun advocates want to be able to take concealed hand guns everywhere - movie theaters, classrooms, etc. Here in Kansas, a paranoid nut accidentally shot a woman in a movie theater with his concealed handgun. In a nearby town, an idiot city council member had his concealed gun accidentally fall to the ground in the middle of a council meeting. Our Universities are being forced to allow students to take guns with them into classrooms. Guns are lethal weapons and by their very nature are intimidating. The fact that so many people now seem to be carrying concealed guns and that I could get hurt or even be killed if I happen to be around an idiot who screws up or someone with anger issues infringes on MY personal safety. You say that YOU want to feel safe. Well, I want to feel safe too and unfortunately the very thing that makes YOU FEEL SAFE makes ME FEEL UNSAFE. Am I crazy that I think that I have just as much right to feel safe as you do?

Not to be an ass, but...yes. I have an inherent right, as spelled out in the 2nd amendment, to bear arms.  You do not have any inherent right to not be around someone who is bearing arms.  No one has a right to "feel" this or not "feel" that.

Technically it doesn't "spell that out". The 2nd amendment applies to a "well organized militia." If you are in fact well trained and part of a militia, then you are absolutely correct. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Essentially the Supreme Courts interpretation provides you and all of us that right.

There is a great book out there called "The Second Amendment" by Michael Waldman. It's neither pro-gun control nor against gun control. It's simply an in-depth look at the 2nd amendment. Here is an excerpt is it relates to the above post:
"But when you actually go back and look at the debate that went into drafting of the amendment, you can squint and look really hard, but there's simply no evidence of it being about individual gun ownership for self-protection or for hunting. Emphatically, the focus was on the militias. To the framers, that phrase "a well-regulated militia" was really critical. In the debates, in James Madison's notes of the Constitutional Convention, on the floor of the House of Representatives as they wrote the Second Amendment, all the focus was about the militias."

For the record I have no skin in the gun debate. Just trying to dispel common myths.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2580
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #223 on: March 04, 2016, 07:40:26 AM »
Yes, it is an emotional argument. No less emotional and knee jerk than those who argue that they need to carry guns with them everywhere to defend themselves when crime rates are at all time lows. Yes, there are people who do live in a dangerous community or have a legitimate risk of targeted violence, but a good many people do not.

Except that those people are justifying something they have a right to do.  Their argument is silly, but that doesn't invalidate their right.  Your argument is also silly, but you're trying to use it to remove my rights.  You have to have a much better reason. 

Know what reason I gave on my CCW application in the space "Reason for Request"?  "Because I can." 
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #224 on: March 04, 2016, 07:41:50 AM »
I respectively disagree with the notion that the 2nd amendment's right to bear arms guarantees that my own safety must be put at risk merely because a person in a low crime community with absolutely no expectation that they are the targets of violence feel they MUST carry a gun with them EVERYWHERE to feel safe.

This thread is really going round & round.
How does someone carrying put your safety at risk?
It could be argued that you might actually be safer when in the vicinity of someone carrying. There are about a dozen stories every month in the American Rifleman magazine that show how legally armed citizens used their firearms to save lives and thwart crimes.  The general media doesn't share these stories.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/02/pastors-daughter-accidentally-shot-while-in-church/

Quote
A 20-year-old pastor's daughter was critically injured Sunday after she was accidentally shot while attending church services at the Grace Connection Church in  St. Petersburg, Fla., according to authorities.

Moises Zambrana, 48, a church congregation member, accidentally discharged his gun and the bullet struck Hannah Kelley in the head.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2580
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #225 on: March 04, 2016, 07:43:42 AM »
I respectively disagree with the notion that the 2nd amendment's right to bear arms guarantees that my own safety must be put at risk merely because a person in a low crime community with absolutely no expectation that they are the targets of violence feel they MUST carry a gun with them EVERYWHERE to feel safe.

This thread is really going round & round.
How does someone carrying put your safety at risk?
It could be argued that you might actually be safer when in the vicinity of someone carrying. There are about a dozen stories every month in the American Rifleman magazine that show how legally armed citizens used their firearms to save lives and thwart crimes.  The general media doesn't share these stories.

Your argument might actually be true if we assume that all gun owners are well-trained and safety conscious.  A great many of them are.

http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/

^ 58 US shootings by toddlers in 2015 gives a small slice of the ample evidence that a sizable minority of owners fail to take the safety of others into consideration though.  These are the people who those interested in gun control want to control via better regulation, rules about gun safety, rules about gun storage, etc.

There are an estimated 300M guns in the US, maybe more.  Cut that in half to allow for people who own multiple guns.  So that's 58 incidents in a pool of 150M.  That's .000039%.

That's a "sizeable minority"?  Isn't this supposed to be a website using real statistics and real analysis to quantify risk and remove emotion from the equation?

(edit, fixed math)
« Last Edit: March 04, 2016, 07:45:40 AM by Chris22 »
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #226 on: March 04, 2016, 07:46:55 AM »
I respectively disagree with the notion that the 2nd amendment's right to bear arms guarantees that my own safety must be put at risk merely because a person in a low crime community with absolutely no expectation that they are the targets of violence feel they MUST carry a gun with them EVERYWHERE to feel safe.

This thread is really going round & round.
How does someone carrying put your safety at risk?
It could be argued that you might actually be safer when in the vicinity of someone carrying. There are about a dozen stories every month in the American Rifleman magazine that show how legally armed citizens used their firearms to save lives and thwart crimes.  The general media doesn't share these stories.

Your argument might actually be true if we assume that all gun owners are well-trained and safety conscious.  A great many of them are.

http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/

^ 58 US shootings by toddlers in 2015 gives a small slice of the ample evidence that a sizable minority of owners fail to take the safety of others into consideration though.  These are the people who those interested in gun control want to control via better regulation, rules about gun safety, rules about gun storage, etc.

There are an estimated 300M guns in the US, maybe more.  Cut that in half to allow for people who own multiple guns.  So that's 58 incidents in a pool of 150M.  That's .0000004%.

That's a "sizeable minority"?  Isn't this supposed to be a website using real statistics and real analysis to quantify risk and remove emotion from the equation?

When people argue that they need a take a concealed gun with them EVERYWHERE to defend themselves in an era in which the crime rate is at an all time low, I think statistics and real analysis to quantify risk has already left the debating arena. The debate long ago ceased to be about numbers and is merely emotional about how a gun makes one feel.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #227 on: March 04, 2016, 07:47:45 AM »
I respectively disagree with the notion that the 2nd amendment's right to bear arms guarantees that my own safety must be put at risk merely because a person in a low crime community with absolutely no expectation that they are the targets of violence feel they MUST carry a gun with them EVERYWHERE to feel safe.

This thread is really going round & round.
How does someone carrying put your safety at risk?
It could be argued that you might actually be safer when in the vicinity of someone carrying. There are about a dozen stories every month in the American Rifleman magazine that show how legally armed citizens used their firearms to save lives and thwart crimes.  The general media doesn't share these stories.

Your argument might actually be true if we assume that all gun owners are well-trained and safety conscious.  A great many of them are.

http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/

^ 58 US shootings by toddlers in 2015 gives a small slice of the ample evidence that a sizable minority of owners fail to take the safety of others into consideration though.  These are the people who those interested in gun control want to control via better regulation, rules about gun safety, rules about gun storage, etc.

There are an estimated 300M guns in the US, maybe more.  Cut that in half to allow for people who own multiple guns.  So that's 58 incidents in a pool of 150M.  That's .0000004%.

That's a "sizeable minority"?  Isn't this supposed to be a website using real statistics and real analysis to quantify risk and remove emotion from the equation?

I didn't say that toddlers were the sizable minority.

Quote
^ 58 US shootings by toddlers in 2015 gives a small slice of the ample evidence that a sizable minority of owners fail to take the safety of others into consideration


Given that there are 300M guns in the US, how many accidental deaths due to negligence surrounding guns are acceptable to you?

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2580
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #228 on: March 04, 2016, 07:50:00 AM »
I respectively disagree with the notion that the 2nd amendment's right to bear arms guarantees that my own safety must be put at risk merely because a person in a low crime community with absolutely no expectation that they are the targets of violence feel they MUST carry a gun with them EVERYWHERE to feel safe.

This thread is really going round & round.
How does someone carrying put your safety at risk?
It could be argued that you might actually be safer when in the vicinity of someone carrying. There are about a dozen stories every month in the American Rifleman magazine that show how legally armed citizens used their firearms to save lives and thwart crimes.  The general media doesn't share these stories.

Your argument might actually be true if we assume that all gun owners are well-trained and safety conscious.  A great many of them are.

http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/

^ 58 US shootings by toddlers in 2015 gives a small slice of the ample evidence that a sizable minority of owners fail to take the safety of others into consideration though.  These are the people who those interested in gun control want to control via better regulation, rules about gun safety, rules about gun storage, etc.

There are an estimated 300M guns in the US, maybe more.  Cut that in half to allow for people who own multiple guns.  So that's 58 incidents in a pool of 150M.  That's .0000004%.

That's a "sizeable minority"?  Isn't this supposed to be a website using real statistics and real analysis to quantify risk and remove emotion from the equation?

When people argue that they need a take a concealed gun with them EVERYWHERE to defend themselves in an era in which the crime rate is at an all time low, I think statistics and real analysis to quantify risk has already left the debating arena. The debate long ago ceased to be about numbers and is merely emotional about how a gun makes one feel.

But again...I have a right to do it.  You want to remove that right, you better use some good statistics, and then pass a Constitutional amendment.  Otherwise, I can claim I want to carry in case we're attacked by aliens, and it's just as good a reason as any for me to exercise my 2A rights (ignoring my potentially being ruled mentally unstable ;)).
"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 #229 on: March 04, 2016, 07:52:50 AM »
Given that there are 300M guns in the US, how many accidental deaths due to negligence surrounding guns are acceptable to you?

"When did you stop beating your wife?" 
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

BeginnerStache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 725
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #230 on: March 04, 2016, 07:56:05 AM »

The bolded part is why I don't understand why folks opposed to electronic record keeping (centered around weapons)  seem to be ok with every other aspect of their personal lives stashed away in electronic format.

Generally speaking, I'll bet they aren't.  Us right wing nutjobs don't really like centralized databases on anything ;)

There are also cases like this:  http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/

I can't imagine how hard it would be make a medical diagnosis when the doctor has to fumble around with searching for previous written records etc. Or the cop running the plate of the convicted felon turned fugitive but getting nothing back (because there are no electronic records). "Sorry sir, I've got nothing on you, enjoy your day!"

Heck I can't imagine the time and manpower that would be necessary for all this manual record keeping. When one click of a button can turn up a persons entire medical history. I think it's fantastic. It's certainly helped my doctor. Heck those are extreme cases. I wonder how many folks carry gas cards/grocery store cards that are scanned for each purchase. Can you in reality, honestly, truthfully, make the inherent claim that you make a conscious effort to erase all electronic records of yourself? I bet not.


JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #231 on: March 04, 2016, 07:56:27 AM »
Given that there are 300M guns in the US, how many accidental deaths due to negligence surrounding guns are acceptable to you?

"When did you stop beating your wife?"

I'm seeing a general argument that sounds like "I don't like this, therefore nobody should" instead of fact. It makes me sad. :(

Quote from: dramaman
Unfortunately, gun control opponents seem to be against any restrictions that could prevent paranoid nuts and idiots from being able to carry concealed weapons.

Source?

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #232 on: March 04, 2016, 07:57:13 AM »
I respectively disagree with the notion that the 2nd amendment's right to bear arms guarantees that my own safety must be put at risk merely because a person in a low crime community with absolutely no expectation that they are the targets of violence feel they MUST carry a gun with them EVERYWHERE to feel safe.

This thread is really going round & round.
How does someone carrying put your safety at risk?
It could be argued that you might actually be safer when in the vicinity of someone carrying. There are about a dozen stories every month in the American Rifleman magazine that show how legally armed citizens used their firearms to save lives and thwart crimes.  The general media doesn't share these stories.

Your argument might actually be true if we assume that all gun owners are well-trained and safety conscious.  A great many of them are.

http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/

^ 58 US shootings by toddlers in 2015 gives a small slice of the ample evidence that a sizable minority of owners fail to take the safety of others into consideration though.  These are the people who those interested in gun control want to control via better regulation, rules about gun safety, rules about gun storage, etc.

There are an estimated 300M guns in the US, maybe more.  Cut that in half to allow for people who own multiple guns.  So that's 58 incidents in a pool of 150M.  That's .0000004%.

That's a "sizeable minority"?  Isn't this supposed to be a website using real statistics and real analysis to quantify risk and remove emotion from the equation?

When people argue that they need a take a concealed gun with them EVERYWHERE to defend themselves in an era in which the crime rate is at an all time low, I think statistics and real analysis to quantify risk has already left the debating arena. The debate long ago ceased to be about numbers and is merely emotional about how a gun makes one feel.

But again...I have a right to do it.  You want to remove that right, you better use some good statistics, and then pass a Constitutional amendment.  Otherwise, I can claim I want to carry in case we're attacked by aliens, and it's just as good a reason as any for me to exercise my 2A rights (ignoring my potentially being ruled mentally unstable ;)).

The Supreme Court didn't need statistics to recognize that crying FIRE in a crowded theater is not protected by the First Amendment. In the same way, one doesn't need statistics to recognize that the 2nd amendment is NOT absolute and some restrictions are just reasonable.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #233 on: March 04, 2016, 08:02:00 AM »
Given that there are 300M guns in the US, how many accidental deaths due to negligence surrounding guns are acceptable to you?

"When did you stop beating your wife?"

I'm seeing a general argument that sounds like "I don't like this, therefore nobody should" instead of fact. It makes me sad. :(

Quote from: dramaman
Unfortunately, gun control opponents seem to be against any restrictions that could prevent paranoid nuts and idiots from being able to carry concealed weapons.

Source?

You want a source? Are you really trying to argue that I could get gun control regulation passed that required gun owners to pass a test that weeded out anyone so paranoid that they think they need to take a gun into a theater or church?

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #234 on: March 04, 2016, 08:07:50 AM »
Given that there are 300M guns in the US, how many accidental deaths due to negligence surrounding guns are acceptable to you?

"When did you stop beating your wife?"

I'm seeing a general argument that sounds like "I don't like this, therefore nobody should" instead of fact. It makes me sad. :(

Quote from: dramaman
Unfortunately, gun control opponents seem to be against any restrictions that could prevent paranoid nuts and idiots from being able to carry concealed weapons.

Source?

You want a source? Are you really trying to argue that I could get gun control regulation passed that required gun owners to pass a test that weeded out anyone so paranoid that they think they need to take a gun into a theater or church?

I want a source that says that gun control opponents are against any restrictions that could prevent paranoid nuts and idiots from being able to carry concealed weapons.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #235 on: March 04, 2016, 08:10:54 AM »
Would you support the end of legal concealed carry?  Because that would prevent both paranoid nuts and idiots from being able to carry concealed weapons.

If not, what solution would you propose as being reasonable to prevent both paranoid nuts and idiots from being able to carry concealed weapons?
« Last Edit: March 04, 2016, 08:13:21 AM by GuitarStv »

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #236 on: March 04, 2016, 08:17:09 AM »
Given that there are 300M guns in the US, how many accidental deaths due to negligence surrounding guns are acceptable to you?

"When did you stop beating your wife?"

You're arguing that the right for you to carry a gun and feel safe trumps the right of someone else to be safe from you carrying your gun.  Given that not everyone will voluntarily choose to store and use their guns in a safe manner, that implies that there must be an acceptable number of negligence caused gun related deaths for you.

If you've been beating your wife, the question is valid . . . even if you don't want to answer it.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #237 on: March 04, 2016, 08:22:32 AM »
Would you support the end of legal concealed carry?  Because that would prevent both paranoid nuts and idiots from being able to carry concealed weapons.

If not, what solution would you propose as being reasonable to prevent both paranoid nuts and idiots from being able to carry concealed weapons?

No, it would not.  It would prevent paranoid nuts and idiots from being able to legally carry concealed weapons - and the vast majority of gun violence is not accidental.  It's people knowingly breaking the law, and simply making it illegal for them to carry a gun isn't going to make them think they should stop murdering people. Do you think the felon (already prohibited from possessing, let alone owning a firearm) who bought a gun on the black market will decide to not carry it because concealed carry isn't legal?

Before I moved to an anti-gun state, I carried a concealed firearm frequently.  Not because I was constantly in fear of being attacked, but because I have years of law enforcement training and experience. I felt that if something were happen that I could potentially stop if I was armed (example), I would have a really hard time forgiving myself if I was unable to help. Not everyone out there is carrying a gun because they're scared.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #238 on: March 04, 2016, 08:24:35 AM »
Would you support the end of legal concealed carry?  Because that would prevent both paranoid nuts and idiots from being able to carry concealed weapons.

If not, what solution would you propose as being reasonable to prevent both paranoid nuts and idiots from being able to carry concealed weapons?

Steve - As a gun owner, I would not support the end of concealed carry.  I would support mandatory training to get concealed carry as well as an FBI background check.  Training should include education on safe storage (mine didn't).

You have mentioned several times some gun owners are paranoid nuts and idiots.  There is some irrational fear on both sides of the argument. 

The nice thing with concealed carry is those who are afraid of guns don't know you have it.  In addition, at least in my state, private businesses can ban concealed weapons should they so choose.

On a whole, concealed carry training requirements improve safety.  I don't have any statistics, but haven't a rash of firearms accidents since my state implemented concealed carry.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2016, 08:32:18 AM by Midwest »

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #239 on: March 04, 2016, 08:25:19 AM »
Given that there are 300M guns in the US, how many accidental deaths due to negligence surrounding guns are acceptable to you?

"When did you stop beating your wife?"

You're arguing that the right for you to carry a gun and feel safe trumps the right of someone else to be safe from you carrying your gun.  Given that not everyone will voluntarily choose to store and use their guns in a safe manner, that implies that there must be an acceptable number of negligence caused gun related deaths for you.

If you've been beating your wife, the question is valid . . . even if you don't want to answer it.

How many deaths from alcohol do you consider acceptable?  Given your crusade against gun owners when you could spend this time campaigning against alcohol and drunk driving, there clearly must be an acceptable number of alcohol deaths.

I don't think there's any acceptable number of children that can drown in order for me to have a swimming pool at my house, but I don't think that swimming pools should be banned outright.

See, we can play this game all day. It's not productive.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2016, 08:26:54 AM by JLee »

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #240 on: March 04, 2016, 08:34:56 AM »
Given that there are 300M guns in the US, how many accidental deaths due to negligence surrounding guns are acceptable to you?

"When did you stop beating your wife?"

I'm seeing a general argument that sounds like "I don't like this, therefore nobody should" instead of fact. It makes me sad. :(

Quote from: dramaman
Unfortunately, gun control opponents seem to be against any restrictions that could prevent paranoid nuts and idiots from being able to carry concealed weapons.

Source?

You want a source? Are you really trying to argue that I could get gun control regulation passed that required gun owners to pass a test that weeded out anyone so paranoid that they think they need to take a gun into a theater or church?

I want a source that says that gun control opponents are against any restrictions that could prevent paranoid nuts and idiots from being able to carry concealed weapons.

My statement as a generalization of the level of contempt that gun control opponents have for any regulations that restrict gun ownership. As far as I know, the NRA only seems to support keeping guns from people who have certifiable mental issues. Somebody who is so paranoid that he thinks he needs to take a gun into a movie theater is not necessarily going to be certifiably insane (although some might argue that ought to be considered that way). Likewise, I have never seen anything to indicate that the NRA would support legal restrictions that prevent someone like that idiot councilman from getting a gun, not to mention a concealed carry. I have no evidence, but I would suppose that the NRA would be against having to pass an IQ test or even gun safety course to buy a firearm. I'm not sure what the NRA's position is on requiring a safety course for a concealed carry permit.

I keep wondering why you are demanding a source for what is a generalization. Either it implies that you thought the generalization was inaccurate was inaccurate or it is just a silly debating tactic.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #241 on: March 04, 2016, 08:42:59 AM »
Would you support the end of legal concealed carry?  Because that would prevent both paranoid nuts and idiots from being able to carry concealed weapons.

If not, what solution would you propose as being reasonable to prevent both paranoid nuts and idiots from being able to carry concealed weapons?

Steve - As a gun owner, I would not support the end of concealed carry.  I would support mandatory training to get concealed carry as well as an FBI background check.  Training should include education on safe storage (mine didn't).

You have mentioned several times some gun owners are paranoid nuts and idiots.  There is some irrational fear on both sides of the argument. 

The nice thing with concealed carry is those who are afraid of guns don't know you have it.  In addition, at least in my state, private businesses can ban concealed weapons should they so choose.

On a whole, concealed carry training requirements improve safety.  I don't have any statistics, but haven't a rash of firearms accidents since my state implemented concealed carry.

Actually I was the one who called some very SPECIFIC concealed gun carriers as paranoid nuts and idiots. Not all, but some.

If you think you are in so much danger that you need to carry a concealed gun into a movie theater, classroom, or church setting, I would label you as a paranoid nut.

If you don't have the common sense and/or training to prevent your concealed gun from falling to the floor and/or accidentally discharging, I think you are an idiot.

Those gun owners who CAN GO OUT IN PUBLIC WITHOUT ALWAYS CARRYING CONCEALED GUNS AND NOT FEEL IMPENDING DOOM are NOT paranoid nuts.
Those concealed gun carriers who ARE ABLE TO PROPERLY MANAGE THEIR GUNS without the guns becoming a distraction are NOT idiots.

Feel free to argue with my assessment.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #242 on: March 04, 2016, 08:43:18 AM »

My statement as a generalization of the level of contempt that gun control opponents have for any regulations that restrict gun ownership.

Dramaman - There are tons of regulations on the books now.  Often, gun control opponents are opposing more unnecessary or useless regulations. 

Case in point, there  is a constant drumbeat about an assault weapons ban in this country.  We had an assault weapons ban which achieved nothing except to limit rights of law abiding citizens.  Long guns (including "assault rifles") are not the choice of criminals so why is that a priority?  It certainly has nothing to do with logic.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4751
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #243 on: March 04, 2016, 08:45:41 AM »
That would be possible with an electronic registry, but no, in an age in which our comprehensive medical history, credit history, voting history and almost every other piece of information is kept in electronic format, guns records haven't evolved any further than gutenberg.

Having all those records about everyone is a bad thing!

You want to know who has a socially-embarrassing disease? Just look it up! You want to know who is likely to be a sucker and an easy mark for your ponzi scheme? Just look it up! You're a corrupt politician and you want to know who to have your goons intimidate into not voting? Just fucking look it up!

No. All of this Orwellian data collection has gone way too fucking far already. Saying that we should add to it is evil!

The bolded part is why I don't understand why folks opposed to electronic record keeping (centered around weapons)  seem to be ok with every other aspect of their personal lives stashed away in electronic format.

If that's actually the case, then I don't understand it either. I hope that it's not, and that the NRA et. al. are failing to strenuously oppose it only because it's outside their area of focus, not because they don't care.

I think you may be painting too broad a picture regarding the aim of people who support gun control of one type or another. But let's say that is true. Then it works both ways. Gun advocates want to be able to take concealed hand guns everywhere - movie theaters, classrooms, etc. Here in Kansas, a paranoid nut accidentally shot a woman in a movie theater with his concealed handgun. In a nearby town, an idiot city council member had his concealed gun accidentally fall to the ground in the middle of a council meeting. Our Universities are being forced to allow students to take guns with them into classrooms.

Guns should be either allowed everywhere, or if a place wants to restrict them, they should be required to let people check them at the door.

Why?

Because if I'm trying to run errands from point A to B to C to D in the same day, and I can't take my gun to point C, then it effectively bans me from taking my gun to A, B, or D either.

This is why the bill that would legalize guns on college campuses currently being considered by the Georgia legislature doesn't go far enough: it fails to allow guns in dorms and fraternity houses, which means that commuter students can exercise their Second Amendment rights, but students living on campus still have their rights infringed.

If you think you are in so much danger that you need to carry a concealed gun into a movie theater, classroom, or church setting, I would label you as a paranoid nut.

Having a gun in the movie theater is almost beside the point. If you disallow it, then you're really disallowing anybody from carrying a gun on their way to and from the movie theater, unless they're a car clown and can lock the gun in their trunk.

If you are in fact well trained and part of a militia, then you are absolutely correct.

Quote from: 10 U.S. Code 311 (a)
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

I am an able-bodied male citizen between 17 and 45 years of age, therefore I am part of the militia.

(Sorry ladies; that's another one of those laws that the feminists should probably work on amending.)

Would you support the end of legal concealed carry?  Because that would prevent both paranoid nuts and idiots from being able to carry concealed weapons.

If not, what solution would you propose as being reasonable to prevent both paranoid nuts and idiots from being able to carry concealed weapons?

What, you prefer they carry openly? That's an unusual opinion.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2580
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #244 on: March 04, 2016, 08:46:49 AM »
As far as I know, the NRA only seems to support keeping guns from people who have certifiable mental issues. Somebody who is so paranoid that he thinks he needs to take a gun into a movie theater is not necessarily going to be certifiably insane (although some might argue that ought to be considered that way).

As long as you hold this view, which appears to be that if you think you might need a gun you are paranoid which should exclude you from being able to posses a gun, I don't believe we can have a productive conversation.  Responsible gun owners are not "paranoid."  They don't carry a gun out of "fear".  They do so for the same reason I wear a seatbelt, own a fire extinguisher, and lock my doors.  Not because I think something will happen, but because I want to be prepared in the small chance it does.


Quote
I have no evidence, but I would suppose that the NRA would be against having to pass an IQ test or even gun safety course to buy a firearm. I'm not sure what the NRA's position is on requiring a safety course for a concealed carry permit.

The NRA would not be in favor of requiring courses for ownership because those can be used as a proxy for gun control, ie "you must take a state-sponsored course to buy a gun" and that course is only held on the 5th Tuesday of every February and costs $700 in pennies. 

However, the NRA is very very very much in favor of as much training as you can afford and that gun owners should spend lots of time practicing with their weapons.  There's a huge difference between believe what someone SHOULD do, and requiring them to do it. 
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #245 on: March 04, 2016, 08:52:04 AM »
As far as I know, the NRA only seems to support keeping guns from people who have certifiable mental issues. Somebody who is so paranoid that he thinks he needs to take a gun into a movie theater is not necessarily going to be certifiably insane (although some might argue that ought to be considered that way).

As long as you hold this view, which appears to be that if you think you might need a gun you are paranoid which should exclude you from being able to posses a gun, I don't believe we can have a productive conversation.  Responsible gun owners are not "paranoid."  They don't carry a gun out of "fear".  They do so for the same reason I wear a seatbelt, own a fire extinguisher, and lock my doors.  Not because I think something will happen, but because I want to be prepared in the small chance it does.


Quote
I have no evidence, but I would suppose that the NRA would be against having to pass an IQ test or even gun safety course to buy a firearm. I'm not sure what the NRA's position is on requiring a safety course for a concealed carry permit.

The NRA would not be in favor of requiring courses for ownership because those can be used as a proxy for gun control, ie "you must take a state-sponsored course to buy a gun" and that course is only held on the 5th Tuesday of every February and costs $700 in pennies. 

However, the NRA is very very very much in favor of as much training as you can afford and that gun owners should spend lots of time practicing with their weapons.  There's a huge difference between believe what someone SHOULD do, and requiring them to do it.

Thank you for substantiating my original generalization. Gun control opponents are against any restrictions that prevented paranoid nuts and idiots from carrying concealed guns.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #246 on: March 04, 2016, 08:52:55 AM »
Actually I was the one who called some very SPECIFIC concealed gun carriers as paranoid nuts and idiots. Not all, but some.

If you think you are in so much danger that you need to carry a concealed gun into a movie theater, classroom, or church setting, I would label you as a paranoid nut.

Could care less if you want to take your gun into those settings provided the church, school or church as not banned it.  I don' t agree that makes you a paranoid gun nut.  Given that shooting have occurred in all 3 of those settings, not sure if it's entirely paranoid.

If you don't have the common sense and/or training to prevent your concealed gun from falling to the floor and/or accidentally discharging, I think you are an idiot.

Agreed accidental discharges are ridiculous.  That's not just concealed carry holders, LEO's do that as well.

Falling on the floor is bad, but why do you include that with accidental discharge?  Guns don't just go off when they are dropped.

Those gun owners who CAN GO OUT IN PUBLIC WITHOUT ALWAYS CARRYING CONCEALED GUNS AND NOT FEEL IMPENDING DOOM are NOT paranoid nuts.
Those concealed gun carriers who ARE ABLE TO PROPERLY MANAGE THEIR GUNS without the guns becoming a distraction are NOT idiots.

Feel free to argue with my assessment.

So if you always think bad things will happen and therefore carry a gun, you are a delusional nut?  That would exclude many current and former police and military. 

For the record, I have a concealed carry.  Used it 1x in 5 years.  Been chastised for not carrying by a police officer who believed if you took the training, you should carry.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2016, 09:00:53 AM by Midwest »

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2580
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #247 on: March 04, 2016, 08:55:01 AM »
Thank you for substantiating my original generalization. Gun control opponents are against any restrictions that prevented paranoid nuts and idiots from carrying concealed guns.

By casting the net wide enough on "paranoid nuts" and "idiots", yes, you are correct.
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #248 on: March 04, 2016, 08:58:41 AM »
I have legally carried a concealed firearm into a movie theater.

Given the information I have provided in this thread, does that make me a "paranoid nut"?  Why or why not?

BeginnerStache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 725
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #249 on: March 04, 2016, 09:00:39 AM »
Given that there are 300M guns in the US, how many accidental deaths due to negligence surrounding guns are acceptable to you?

"When did you stop beating your wife?"

You're arguing that the right for you to carry a gun and feel safe trumps the right of someone else to be safe from you carrying your gun.  Given that not everyone will voluntarily choose to store and use their guns in a safe manner, that implies that there must be an acceptable number of negligence caused gun related deaths for you.

If you've been beating your wife, the question is valid . . . even if you don't want to answer it.

How many deaths from alcohol do you consider acceptable?  Given your crusade against gun owners when you could spend this time campaigning against alcohol and drunk driving, there clearly must be an acceptable number of alcohol deaths.

I don't think there's any acceptable number of children that can drown in order for me to have a swimming pool at my house, but I don't think that swimming pools should be banned outright.

See, we can play this game all day. It's not productive.

Trying to analogize gun ownership/violence with some other aspect of our lives is utterly pointless and as I believe was explained earlier "disingenuous."  A swimming pool, is used for leisure. It's purpose is not to kill. Alcohol is also used for leisure. It's purpose is not to kill. Same with a car and any other item who's purpose is not to kill. The analogies are pointless. Yes on both sides. They could go on forever. If you found where someone was killed by a coffee mug, do we ban coffee mugs? It's ridiculous to compare a gun to anything other than another gun or weapon of some sort, who's sole purpose is to kill (or maim, whatever).