Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 345950 times)

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2580
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2000 on: January 12, 2017, 10:17:02 AM »
How about "responsible gun owner"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2580
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2001 on: January 12, 2017, 10:20:31 AM »
I was citing that as an example of being "controlled." That doesn't mean that's the only possible way they could be. But I think a reasonable person (or a reasonable law) would consider having guns secured in a safe as one example of it. Apparently that makes me a "gun grabber" and a nut.

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

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

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


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

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


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

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2157
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2002 on: January 12, 2017, 10:24:20 AM »
How about "responsible gun owner"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sigh. And there you go again, arguing with your straw man. I'm out. You don't need me for this conversation. You can go have it with the version of me you've created in your head.
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

Malum Prohibitum

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 623
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2003 on: January 12, 2017, 10:24:54 AM »
Heller v. DC struck down D.C.'s trigger lock requirement, so I can't see storage laws surviving constitutional scrutiny.  This part of the Heller opinion did not get any press, for some reason, but it's pretty clear.  Basically, the law may not interfere with having a gun available for immediate use in self defense.  After discussing D.C.'s requirement that guns be disassembled or wearing a trigger lock or similar device, the Court struck down both the ban on possession and the storage restrictions.   Here is their holding at the end:

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

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

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2580
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2004 on: January 12, 2017, 10:26:15 AM »
How about "responsible gun owner"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2157
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2005 on: January 12, 2017, 10:28:18 AM »
How about "responsible gun owner"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, for God's sake.

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

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

Christ, is there ANY point in this conversation?
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

Malum Prohibitum

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 623
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2006 on: January 12, 2017, 10:31:44 AM »
No, I generally give the benefit of the doubt and think "well meaning but ignorant."  You want to talk to the real gun freaks (I'm a rank amateur) and they'll tell you it's because you ultimately desire to control me.  I give people more of the benefit of the doubt than that.
  As a "real gun freak" who founded an organization with more than 10,000 members dedicated to this issue, that changed criminal laws affecting the right to bear arms through education, legislation, and litigation, I have to say that your "approach" at persuasion leaves a little to be desired.

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

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

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2580
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2007 on: January 12, 2017, 10:32:15 AM »
How about "responsible gun owner"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, for God's sake.

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

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

Christ, is there ANY point in this conversation?

Why so hysterical? 

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

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

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2157
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2008 on: January 12, 2017, 10:45:02 AM »
How about "responsible gun owner"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, for God's sake.

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

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

Christ, is there ANY point in this conversation?

Why so hysterical? 

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

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

No. No, I don't.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

« Last Edit: January 12, 2017, 10:57:35 AM by Kris »
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

MishMash

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 466
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2009 on: January 12, 2017, 10:56:21 AM »
Kris,

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

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

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

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2157
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2010 on: January 12, 2017, 10:59:40 AM »
Kris,

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

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

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

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

Also, NO. I have absolutely no idea where you got the bolded part, but do NOT put words in my mouth that I have never said or even implied. I seriously have no idea how you got any of that out of anything I have said. Frankly, I would like an apology.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2017, 11:01:47 AM by Kris »
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

Malum Prohibitum

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 623
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2011 on: January 12, 2017, 11:00:09 AM »
Our house was broken into a few years back, we had 3 of them, all bolted into the floor, or the wall.  Two smashed open with what the cops suspect was a sledgehammer, they took the third one with them by sheering off the stud it was connected to.  We've also had friends that have had whole gun safes stolen. 
  Sorry to hear that.  I know people to whom this has happened as well.

Malum Prohibitum

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 623
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2012 on: January 12, 2017, 11:01:08 AM »
Why is this comment being directed at me? When did I ever say that gun safes were "safe"?
  LOL!

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2580
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2013 on: January 12, 2017, 11:36:08 AM »

No. No, I don't.

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

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

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

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


Again,

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

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

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

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2014 on: January 12, 2017, 11:43:57 AM »
In Europe, which has far fewer gun crimes, silencers can be bought over the counter. We need laws more in line with other  developed countries!
  Metric Mouse, a bill was introduced in Congress recently (The Hearing Protection Act) to do just that.  H.R. 367.

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

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

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

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

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

MustacheMathTM

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2157
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2015 on: January 12, 2017, 11:45:25 AM »
In Europe, which has far fewer gun crimes, silencers can be bought over the counter. We need laws more in line with other  developed countries!
I think that would be fine, IF we do things like require training and responsibility for your weapon.  AKA you need to keep control of it at all times and are responsible (jail time) if you do not.

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

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

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

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

My point was, and still is, that yes, if your guns have a lock between them and other people, then they are "in your control" in a reasonable way. (Which was my whole point all along, I might add.)
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2580
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2016 on: January 12, 2017, 11:48:15 AM »
In Europe, which has far fewer gun crimes, silencers can be bought over the counter. We need laws more in line with other  developed countries!
I think that would be fine, IF we do things like require training and responsibility for your weapon.  AKA you need to keep control of it at all times and are responsible (jail time) if you do not.

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

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

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

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

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

That's great, but do you see where your remark, tied up with the little snark "that's not so hard", seems to make no room for any other way?  Hence why we're in this debate?
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2157
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2017 on: January 12, 2017, 11:58:39 AM »
In Europe, which has far fewer gun crimes, silencers can be bought over the counter. We need laws more in line with other  developed countries!
I think that would be fine, IF we do things like require training and responsibility for your weapon.  AKA you need to keep control of it at all times and are responsible (jail time) if you do not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not really, no, since I was responding to your specific question about your lonely guns with a pretty simple and specific answer about that particular situation (hence "that's not so hard").
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

MishMash

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 466
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2018 on: January 12, 2017, 12:27:42 PM »
Kris,

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

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

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

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

Also, NO. I have absolutely no idea where you got the bolded part, but do NOT put words in my mouth that I have never said or even implied. I seriously have no idea how you got any of that out of anything I have said. Frankly, I would like an apology.

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

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2157
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2019 on: January 12, 2017, 12:59:24 PM »
Kris,

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

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

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

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

Also, NO. I have absolutely no idea where you got the bolded part, but do NOT put words in my mouth that I have never said or even implied. I seriously have no idea how you got any of that out of anything I have said. Frankly, I would like an apology.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And on a similar note, can you please tell me, given that I have guns in my house and no gun safe, how it is that "Pretty much what you are saying is that I should be in jail because a criminal had the intent, and means to break into my home, and my safe, and violate MY privacy...but it's my fault because they weren't "secured" enough"?
« Last Edit: January 12, 2017, 01:02:34 PM by Kris »
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2580
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2020 on: January 12, 2017, 01:19:12 PM »

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

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

MrAlanBreck

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • Family man.
    • Faith of our Fathers
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2021 on: January 12, 2017, 01:22:08 PM »

Christ, is there ANY point in this conversation?

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

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2157
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2022 on: January 12, 2017, 01:26:18 PM »

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

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

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

"I guess that depends on who else is in your house or has access to it with a key (that is, not breaking in unlawfully) while you're gone."

And in subsequent posts, I did indeed say more than once that having your guns locked up in a safe was one reasonable example of "controlled," but not the only one.
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

KBecks

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 771
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2023 on: January 12, 2017, 01:29:10 PM »
My guns, my house, my rules, my comfort level.   It's called private property.

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2157
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2024 on: January 12, 2017, 01:34:53 PM »
My guns, my house, my rules, my comfort level.   It's called private property.

Yes, that's obvious. That's not the point. The point is having them in your control, so that, say, a three year-old can't get to them and shoot someone or themselves to death. That's what the idea of "controlled" means.
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2025 on: January 12, 2017, 01:54:52 PM »
My guns, my house, my rules, my comfort level.   It's called private property.

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

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

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2157
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2026 on: January 12, 2017, 01:57:18 PM »
My guns, my house, my rules, my comfort level.   It's called private property.

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

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

Okay. If so, that's Gin's idea. As far as I can tell, she hasn't been participating in this thread since I entered it. Maybe she will come back and clarify at some point.
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2027 on: January 12, 2017, 02:02:42 PM »
My guns, my house, my rules, my comfort level.   It's called private property.

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

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

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

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

spartana

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3597
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2028 on: January 12, 2017, 02:11:31 PM »
My guns, my house, my rules, my comfort level.   It's called private property.

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

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

 Personally, with no kids, I have one or two or sometimes 3 loaded all the time and don't store them. Although I do hide them as well as I can if I'm not home and with a ccw take one with me. I don't support laws that require mandatory storage or trigger locks.
Retired at 42 to play!

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2580
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2029 on: January 12, 2017, 02:13:32 PM »
My guns, my house, my rules, my comfort level.   It's called private property.

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

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

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

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

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

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2030 on: January 12, 2017, 02:15:25 PM »
My guns, my house, my rules, my comfort level.   It's called private property.

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

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

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

Spartana: 

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

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

spartana

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3597
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2031 on: January 12, 2017, 02:21:56 PM »
Yeah I did (just watched it 5 minutes ago). Confirms Chris 22 fears. Personally I would never want one and think they are a bad idea for home or personal protection. But if you can turn off the finger print ID when you're home and turn it on when you're gone it might make sense fr some people who have kids or to prevent a thief from using it if its stolen.
Retired at 42 to play!

KBecks

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 771
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2032 on: January 12, 2017, 02:26:09 PM »
Ok, my house, my guns, my rules, my three year old.  I'll handle the safety in the way I see fit.

KBecks

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 771
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2033 on: January 12, 2017, 02:27:28 PM »
What makes you think that my home and property are not in my control?

KBecks

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 771
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2034 on: January 12, 2017, 02:29:34 PM »
And yes, 3 year olds are trouble!   It's not just guns ya worrry about.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2035 on: January 12, 2017, 02:30:50 PM »
Yeah I did (just watched it 5 minutes ago). Confirms Chris 22 fears. Personally I would never want one and think they are a bad idea for home or personal protection. But if you can turn off the finger print ID when you're home and turn it on when you're gone it might make sense fr some people who have kids or to prevent a thief from using it if its stolen.

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

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

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2157
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2036 on: January 12, 2017, 02:34:14 PM »
My guns, my house, my rules, my comfort level.   It's called private property.

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

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

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

I think Smart Gun technology seems like a good idea in theory as an option for people, but most people I've talked to who are NRA members -- and the NRA themselves -- are against any technology like that.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2017, 02:47:49 PM by Kris »
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2037 on: January 12, 2017, 02:54:42 PM »
Chris22,
I do not know why this tangent started off a post about silencers, but I do not think any of them advocated a law banning you from owning weapons unless they are locked in an expensive safe  They are just saying it is a good idea. 

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

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

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

MustacheMathTM

KBecks

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 771
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2038 on: January 12, 2017, 03:03:35 PM »

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

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

scottish

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 673
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2039 on: January 12, 2017, 03:33:37 PM »
Why are legal requirements for training and safe storage a bad idea?

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


Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2040 on: January 12, 2017, 03:59:32 PM »
And yes, 3 year olds are trouble!   It's not just guns ya worrry about.

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

MustacheMathTM

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2041 on: January 12, 2017, 04:01:55 PM »

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

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

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

MustacheMathTM

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2042 on: January 12, 2017, 04:06:20 PM »
Why are legal requirements for training and safe storage a bad idea?

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

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

MustacheMathTM

scottish

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 673
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2043 on: January 12, 2017, 04:39:53 PM »
Yeah, they probably wouldn't work.   If you're a safety-conscious owner you do this anyway.   If you're not, the law won't convince you.

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

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2044 on: January 12, 2017, 04:46:02 PM »
Yeah, they probably wouldn't work.   If you're a safety-conscious owner you do this anyway.   If you're not, the law won't convince you.

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

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

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2580
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2045 on: January 12, 2017, 04:58:26 PM »
Yeah, they probably wouldn't work.   If you're a safety-conscious owner you do this anyway.   If you're not, the law won't convince you.

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

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

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

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2046 on: January 12, 2017, 05:35:13 PM »
Because groups will use a safety training requirement as a backdoor ban. Want a gun in CA or IL or NYC?  That will be 40 hours of safety training provided by a state instructor who teaches 10 people per class, 1 class a year, for $1500 a person. What, you're against safety???

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

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2157
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2047 on: January 12, 2017, 05:42:18 PM »
Because groups will use a safety training requirement as a backdoor ban. Want a gun in CA or IL or NYC?  That will be 40 hours of safety training provided by a state instructor who teaches 10 people per class, 1 class a year, for $1500 a person. What, you're against safety???

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

I definitely think a safety training requirement is a good idea. And it's my understanding that several states already do require safety training or an exam for gun purchase.
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2048 on: January 12, 2017, 07:57:05 PM »
Because groups will use a safety training requirement as a backdoor ban. Want a gun in CA or IL or NYC?  That will be 40 hours of safety training provided by a state instructor who teaches 10 people per class, 1 class a year, for $1500 a person. What, you're against safety???

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

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

Which states?

spartana

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3597
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2049 on: January 12, 2017, 08:00:48 PM »
I believe Cali does to purchase a handgun if you don't have military or LE firearms training. Its a safety class.
https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/fscfaqs#a2

The fee is $25
« Last Edit: January 12, 2017, 08:07:30 PM by spartana »
Retired at 42 to play!