Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 426937 times)

MasterStache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 999
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #200 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 #201 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: 8537
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #202 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: 1433
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #203 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: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #204 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: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #205 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: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #206 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 #207 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: 8537
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #208 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.

MasterStache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 999
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #209 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: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #210 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 #211 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: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #212 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 #213 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: 8537
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #214 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: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #215 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: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #216 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

MasterStache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 999
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #217 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: 3735
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #218 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 #219 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 #220 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: 3735
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #221 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: 8537
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #222 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: 8537
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #223 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: 3735
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #224 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: 1147
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #225 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: 3735
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #226 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 #227 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 #228 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: 1147
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #229 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: 4745
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #230 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: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #231 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 #232 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: 1147
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #233 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: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #234 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: 3735
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #235 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?

MasterStache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 999
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #236 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).

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8537
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #237 on: March 04, 2016, 09:04:27 AM »
Quote from: Midwest
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).

I think that this is a reasonable idea.  It shouldn't just applied to concealed carry though.  Why not have mandatory training including education on safe storage (and some sort of basic safety test) be a part of ownership for any gun?





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.

The cool thing about drunk driving is that it was made illegal, and regular public campaigns against it went out.  And you know what happened?

Deaths from drunk driving have trended down year after year, despite the growing number of people driving.

In the same way I'm not advocating that all guns are banned, I wouldn't advocate that all alcohol (or cars) be banned.  But sensible restrictions on where you can carry a gun (for example) and regulations on who can drive and when that freedom can be revoked due to reckless behavior seem to make a lot of sense.


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.

OK, so we're in agreement here.  Banning swimming pools outright is a bad idea.  But there are regulations regarding safety around swimming pools that are currently enforced regarding access to the pool, fencing, etc.  I think we both probably agree that these pool regulations make a lot of sense.  They've reduced deaths from swimming pools among toddlers.

Drawing parallels between ownership of a weapon designed to kill, and alcohol or a swimming pool is again disingenuous.  For all the same reasons that I listed the last time you did it.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #238 on: March 04, 2016, 09:04:47 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.  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.  That's not just concealed carry holders, LEO's do that as well.

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.

I just thought it useful to define what I consider a paranoid nut. If you can't enjoy a few hours at a movie or in church unarmed without feeling like you are about to become a victim, something is wrong with you. If you can't go to a college class without the overpowering worry of someone shooting you. Something is wrong with you.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #239 on: March 04, 2016, 09:06:25 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?

If the reason you did carry the gun was that you were afraid that you would be killed by someone there, then that would make you a paranoid nut in my book.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1147
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #240 on: March 04, 2016, 09:09:56 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.  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.  That's not just concealed carry holders, LEO's do that as well.

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.

I just thought it useful to define what I consider a paranoid nut. If you can't enjoy a few hours at a movie or in church unarmed without feeling like you are about to become a victim, something is wrong with you. If you can't go to a college class without the overpowering worry of someone shooting you. Something is wrong with you.

Concealed carry incidents are rare.  If a gun in the purse or holster of a legally carrying citizen makes them feel better, how does that impact you 99.9999999% of the time?  I get the feeling you have just as much of an irrational fear as they do.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4745
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #241 on: March 04, 2016, 09:13:12 AM »
In the same way I'm not advocating that all guns are banned, I wouldn't advocate that all alcohol (or cars) be banned.  But sensible restrictions on where you can carry a gun (for example) and regulations on who can drive and when that freedom can be revoked due to reckless behavior seem to make a lot of sense.

The difference is that, unlike the right to carry a gun, the right to drive a car on public roads (while drunk or otherwise) is not enshrined in the Constitution!

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3735
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #242 on: March 04, 2016, 09:17:08 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?

If the reason you did carry the gun was that you were afraid that you would be killed by someone there, then that would make you a paranoid nut in my book.

You are not very good at reading.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #243 on: March 04, 2016, 09:17:25 AM »
mandatory training including education on safe storage

So here, I'll make myself a target.  What is safe storage?  I have, right now, in my house with a toddler, a loaded gun laying on the floor under my bed.  "Oh My God!" right?  How irresponsible of me!  I'm violating all sorts of rules or should-be rules on safe storage, and it's amazing something tragic hasn't happened!!

In reality, it's a shotgun.  It weighs around 10lbs and with the short barrel on is about 30" long.  There is no round chambered (2 in the pipe though).  For someone to fire it, they'd have to be able to hold it, depress the cocking lever while racking the slide and cycle the action, and remove the safety.  There is not physical way my toddler has the dexterity and strength to do it.  When she is older and stronger and has the physical ability to handle a firearm, she'll be trained, and I may re-evaluate my storage technique.

But for now, people with zero knowledge of guns would, I'm sure, freak out about "OMG loaded gun on the floor!"

"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 #244 on: March 04, 2016, 09:18:34 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.  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.  That's not just concealed carry holders, LEO's do that as well.

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.

I just thought it useful to define what I consider a paranoid nut. If you can't enjoy a few hours at a movie or in church unarmed without feeling like you are about to become a victim, something is wrong with you. If you can't go to a college class without the overpowering worry of someone shooting you. Something is wrong with you.

If a gun in the purse or holster of a legally carrying citizen makes them feel better, how does that impact you 99.9999999% of the time?  I get the feeling you have just as much of an irrational fear as they do.

My big concern are idiots, who I have already defined. Unfortunately the idiots are often also paranoid nuts.

If you are a paranoid nut and NOT an idiot. I probably have no real problem with you, unless you also have anger issues. That is a different issue entirely.
If you are a paranoid nut AND an idiot. I have big problems.

This all goes back to an offhand generalization I made that unfortunately gun control opponents will never agree to any restrictions that would prevent paranoid nuts and idiots (not to mention people with anger issues) from carrying concealed firearms.

Regarding irrational fears. Yes, I realize the risk of being harmed by an idiot with a gun is very, very low. My reason for bring it up was to counter what I thought was the equally irrational fear of those persons who think they need a gun during the lowest crime rate in decades. Ultimately the irrational fear of people needing guns to feel safe is offset by the irrational fear of people like me who are fearful of so many people carrying guns in public. So if fear is the argument, why is your fear more valid than my fear? That was the point I was originally trying to make.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #245 on: March 04, 2016, 09:21:26 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.  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.  That's not just concealed carry holders, LEO's do that as well.

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.

I just thought it useful to define what I consider a paranoid nut. If you can't enjoy a few hours at a movie or in church unarmed without feeling like you are about to become a victim, something is wrong with you. If you can't go to a college class without the overpowering worry of someone shooting you. Something is wrong with you.

If a gun in the purse or holster of a legally carrying citizen makes them feel better, how does that impact you 99.9999999% of the time?  I get the feeling you have just as much of an irrational fear as they do.

My big concern are idiots, who I have already defined. Unfortunately the idiots are often also paranoid nuts.

If you are a paranoid nut and NOT an idiot. I probably have no real problem with you, unless you also have anger issues. That is a different issue entirely.
If you are a paranoid nut AND an idiot. I have big problems.

This all goes back to an offhand generalization I made that unfortunately gun control opponents will never agree to any restrictions that would prevent paranoid nuts and idiots (not to mention people with anger issues) from carrying concealed firearms.

Regarding irrational fears. Yes, I realize the risk of being harmed by an idiot with a gun is very, very low. My reason for bring it up was to counter what I thought was the equally irrational fear of those persons who think they need a gun during the lowest crime rate in decades. Ultimately the irrational fear of people needing guns to feel safe is offset by the irrational fear of people like me who are fearful of so many people carrying guns in public. So if fear is the argument, why is your fear more valid than my fear? That was the point I was originally trying to make.

Because the way I can alleviate my so-called fear is Constitutionally protected.  You need a better reason than "He makes me scared and I don't like it" to rescind my Constitutional rights.  You need an amendment. 
"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 #246 on: March 04, 2016, 09:21:45 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?

If the reason you did carry the gun was that you were afraid that you would be killed by someone there, then that would make you a paranoid nut in my book.

You are not very good at reading.

Sorry, I missed the 'information I have provided in this thread' bit. I seem to recall you are law enforcement, or ex-law enforcement or something like that and you are afraid that you would regret not being able to intervene if something happened. Is that correct? If that context is true, I would likely give you the benefit of the doubt and say you are not a paranoid nut. Mother hen, perhaps. ;)

cheapass

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 476
  • Location: Dallas, Texas
  • On track for FIRE @ 40
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #247 on: March 04, 2016, 09:22:06 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?

+1

I will not patronize movie theaters that disallow me from carrying. If some psychotic fuck wants to shoot up the place, I at least have a fighting chance to protect my family and don't have to hide under my seat waiting for my turn to die.

Here in Texas, businesses that actually post the required 30.06 signs are exceedingly rare though. They recognize it isn't in their best interest to literally turn customers away at the door.
Every single decision you make with money either shortens or lengthens your working career.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #248 on: March 04, 2016, 09:27:20 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.  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.  That's not just concealed carry holders, LEO's do that as well.

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.

I just thought it useful to define what I consider a paranoid nut. If you can't enjoy a few hours at a movie or in church unarmed without feeling like you are about to become a victim, something is wrong with you. If you can't go to a college class without the overpowering worry of someone shooting you. Something is wrong with you.

If a gun in the purse or holster of a legally carrying citizen makes them feel better, how does that impact you 99.9999999% of the time?  I get the feeling you have just as much of an irrational fear as they do.

My big concern are idiots, who I have already defined. Unfortunately the idiots are often also paranoid nuts.

If you are a paranoid nut and NOT an idiot. I probably have no real problem with you, unless you also have anger issues. That is a different issue entirely.
If you are a paranoid nut AND an idiot. I have big problems.

This all goes back to an offhand generalization I made that unfortunately gun control opponents will never agree to any restrictions that would prevent paranoid nuts and idiots (not to mention people with anger issues) from carrying concealed firearms.

Regarding irrational fears. Yes, I realize the risk of being harmed by an idiot with a gun is very, very low. My reason for bring it up was to counter what I thought was the equally irrational fear of those persons who think they need a gun during the lowest crime rate in decades. Ultimately the irrational fear of people needing guns to feel safe is offset by the irrational fear of people like me who are fearful of so many people carrying guns in public. So if fear is the argument, why is your fear more valid than my fear? That was the point I was originally trying to make.

Because the way I can alleviate my so-called fear is Constitutionally protected.  You need a better reason than "He makes me scared and I don't like it" to rescind my Constitutional rights.  You need an amendment.

Sigh. The 2nd amendment is not some kind of trump card that makes your irrational fear more valid than my irrational fear. The 2nd amend is a LEGAL argument for why the government is limited in its ability to restrict you carring guns. It has no bearing whatsoever to contradict my assertion that your irrational fear is countered by my irrational fear.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #249 on: March 04, 2016, 09:28:48 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?

+1

I will not patronize movie theaters that disallow me from carrying. If some psychotic fuck wants to shoot up the place, I at least have a fighting chance to protect my family and don't have to hide under my seat waiting for my turn to die.

Here in Texas, businesses that actually post the required 30.06 signs are exceedingly rare though. They recognize it isn't in their best interest to literally turn customers away at the door.

Thank you very much for providing the counterexample to JLee.