Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 394729 times)

MoonLiteNite

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 394
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2050 on: January 17, 2017, 04:27:55 AM »
1.   Why don't you move to a less dangerous area?    It can't be much fun, being constantly on edge that someone is going to invade your house or assault you on the street.
My area is very safe for my city, state and country. I have a firearm in my home JUST IN CASE. Same as having house ins, or a fire extinguisher, or smoke alarm. I rather give myself that little edge then no edge in case something happens.

Quote
2.  Do you regularly practice with your firearm?   (I used to shoot cans with a .22 when I was a kid, but that's about the limit of my experience.   When I eventually FIRE, I'd like to try some practical shooting if I can find a good range.   But I don't have time for another hobby right now.)
Not really, kinda pricey to go out shooting, and it hurts my ears, even with decent protection. Not really into sport shooting, or hunting, to me a firearm is a self defence tool

Quote
3.  If you have children or a spouse, how have you trained them to stay out of the way if there's an incident?  i.e. so they don't get shot?
Roomates, one has his kid over from time to time. All understand my guns are loaded, with no safety on. It is THEIR job to keep themselves and their kids off of my property

Quote
4.  How to you plan to deal with the first responders after an incident?    Will the police arrest you?   Do you have a lawyer ready to call on your phone?  Or does your jurisdiction take the view that you're allowed to shoot in your home, so you don't expect to have issues with the authorities?
If i were to use the firearm to defend myself in my house, which i have. Then most likely there will be no arrest, at worst i would be detained for up to 24 hours (the most they can without charging you). I do not have a lawyer ready to go, but i will tell the cops, as i have done before. "please no talking until i talk to lawyer", it is the best thing to do for ANYTHING dealing with a cop.


I fully support constitutional carry. I do not believe it is OK for a group of people charge me money for a right to defend myself in my house, or at the local store.


hoosier

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 84
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2051 on: January 17, 2017, 07:08:21 AM »
Here's my thing when it comes to the 2A and its "ambiguity":  If the 2A is too ambiguous we have a very specific process for fixing that - ratify a new constitutional amendment that nullifies the 2A and replaces it with something "better".  Put all the language in there about right to carry, safe storage, training, capacity and action limitations, etc.  Boom (pun).  Done.


Drifterrider

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1022
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2052 on: January 17, 2017, 07:26:09 AM »
Eh.  Perhaps I erred.  Apparently firearms ownership cannot be infringed no matter what.  AND that owners should be part of a well regulated militia.  So all gun owners should enlist in their respective National Guards.  Having served in the Guard I can vouch that "well regulated" can be an exaggeration.  But close enough for government work.

Back when the documents were written, that was the case.  All free adult men were required to be a member of the militia AND furnish their own firearms.

cheapass

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 429
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2053 on: January 17, 2017, 07:42:27 AM »
AND that owners should be part of a well regulated militia.  So all gun owners should enlist in their respective National Guards.

According to US CFR, the militia consists of organized (national guard) and unorganized components. The unorganized militia is all males between the ages of 17 and 45.

Also,  "well regulated" during the founders' time did not mean restricted/controlled, rather it meant well functioning.

Malum Prohibitum

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 656
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2054 on: January 17, 2017, 08:17:24 AM »
A well educated electorate, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.

Does this mean that only the well educated can own or read books?

Does this mean that libraries must check the education level before admitting a patron?

Would children's access to books be protected under this provision?

Would registration of readers and tracking the books they read be permissible without violating this provision?

Would a $200 tax on each book violate this provision?

Would only registered voters, that is, the likely electorate, have access to books, with all others being denied, be a statutory scheme consistent with the provision?

Would this provision protect ownership or reading of Kindle books and online sources, or only paper-printer-press-bound books?

robartsd

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 846
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2055 on: January 17, 2017, 01:58:21 PM »
The punctuation of the second amendment varies among different copies of the document. The three comma version quoted earlier in this thread is as written by the scribe in Congress. The text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." was ratified by the states and authenticated by the Secretary of State.

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2318
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2056 on: January 17, 2017, 02:01:13 PM »
The punctuation of the second amendment varies among different copies of the document. The three comma version quoted earlier in this thread is as written by the scribe in Congress. The text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." was ratified by the states and authenticated by the Secretary of State.

Cool.

So, then we still have to contend with two things: One, that the authors chose to put the idea of a well-regulated militia first in the sentence. In other words, in a stronger, more prominent position. And two, that they even chose to include the language about a well-regulated militia at all. Why didn't they simply write "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed"?

(And arguably three: that at the time the amendment was written, all free men were obligated to participate in the militia, and furnish their own guns. As was pointed out earlier in the thread.)
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8260
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2057 on: January 17, 2017, 02:05:38 PM »
A lot of debate about rights in this thread.

I can only assume that you all must fully support the right of any person to choose to die whenever they want?  You can't get a more fundamental right than control over your own life.  Suicide is by far the largest cause of death from gun use, so are you all pro-suicide?

Malum Prohibitum

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 656
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2058 on: January 17, 2017, 02:08:20 PM »
The punctuation of the second amendment varies among different copies of the document. The three comma version quoted earlier in this thread is as written by the scribe in Congress. The text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." was ratified by the states and authenticated by the Secretary of State.

Cool.

So, then we still have to contend with two things: One, that the authors chose to put the idea of a well-regulated militia first in the sentence. In other words, in a stronger, more prominent position. And two, that they even chose to include the language about a well-regulated militia at all. Why didn't they simply write "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed"?

(And arguably three: that at the time the amendment was written, all free men were obligated to participate in the militia, and furnish their own guns. As was pointed out earlier in the thread.)
  I do not understand why these are things with which we need to contend.  Those who wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights had a firm belief that a well regulated militia was important.  This is the reason they put the Second Amendment in the bill of rights.  You can't have a militia with a disarmed populace (not in the sense that the Founders meant it).  Skim through the Federalist Papers some time. There is quite a lot in it discussing arms and militia and therefore some of their thoughts on the subject.  There is plenty more out there to read as well.  Basically, there was no counter viewpoint of the Second Amendment existing at that period of history.  Current arguments arose much later.

 * * *

Out of curiosity, was my post #2120 helpful to anybody?  The language does not seem so hard to understand, either the text or intent, if you remove the "gun" issue by replacing some of the words.
Out of curiosity, did my post # 2120

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1201
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2059 on: January 17, 2017, 02:10:33 PM »
A lot of debate about rights in this thread.

I can only assume that you all must fully support the right of any person to choose to die whenever they want?  You can't get a more fundamental right than control over your own life.  Suicide is by far the largest cause of death from gun use, so are you all pro-suicide?

Supporting the right to choose to die (which I do) is not the same as supporting suicide, just like supporting the right to choose to have an abortion (which I do) is not about supporting all abortions.

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2318
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2060 on: January 17, 2017, 02:11:54 PM »
The punctuation of the second amendment varies among different copies of the document. The three comma version quoted earlier in this thread is as written by the scribe in Congress. The text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." was ratified by the states and authenticated by the Secretary of State.

Cool.

So, then we still have to contend with two things: One, that the authors chose to put the idea of a well-regulated militia first in the sentence. In other words, in a stronger, more prominent position. And two, that they even chose to include the language about a well-regulated militia at all. Why didn't they simply write "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed"?

(And arguably three: that at the time the amendment was written, all free men were obligated to participate in the militia, and furnish their own guns. As was pointed out earlier in the thread.)
  I do not understand why these are things with which we need to contend.  Those who wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights had a firm belief that a well regulated militia was important.  This is the reason they put the Second Amendment in the bill of rights.  You can't have a militia with a disarmed populace (not in the sense that the Founders meant it).  Skim through the Federalist Papers some time. There is quite a lot in it discussing arms and militia and therefore some of their thoughts on the subject.  There is plenty more out there to read as well.  Basically, there was no counter viewpoint of the Second Amendment existing at that period of history.  Current arguments arose much later.

 * * *

Out of curiosity, was my post #2120 helpful to anybody?  The language does not seem so hard to understand, either the text or intent, if you remove the "gun" issue by replacing some of the words.
Out of curiosity, did my post # 2120

Because the right to bear arms is qualified by the reason that the young country needed a militia.

Personally, I didn't find your post 2120 helpful. I didn't reply because I mostly found it confusing. Replacing one word/concept with another very different word/concept did not make clear to me how the two were to be equated, in your mind. Sorry.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3608
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2061 on: January 17, 2017, 02:14:53 PM »
A lot of debate about rights in this thread.

I can only assume that you all must fully support the right of any person to choose to die whenever they want?  You can't get a more fundamental right than control over your own life.  Suicide is by far the largest cause of death from gun use, so are you all pro-suicide?

That's pretty much a textbook 'affirming the consequent' fallacy.

Malum Prohibitum

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 656
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2062 on: January 17, 2017, 02:20:11 PM »
Because the right to bear arms is qualified by the reason that the young country needed a militia.
  Ah.  So was it a qualification on the right, or a purpose for the right?  See the difference?  These men knew how to qualify something and bring it to an end, as they did in several other places in the same document with other issues.


Sorry my other one was confusing.  I thought it would make the issue more plain English and get the emotion and preconceived notions (like a well regulated militia being a "qualification") out of the discussion for a moment.  It is, actually the same sentence, substituting only the importance of a well educated electorate for the importance of a well regulated militia and the right to books for the right to arms.  If a well regulated militia is a qualification on the right protected by the Second Amendment, then a well educated electorate is a qualification on the right protected by the Second Amendment right to keep and read books.   Give it a chance to sink in (if you haven't, which I am not assuming), and, if not, oh, well, I tried.  thanks for at least giving it a shot.  :)

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2318
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2063 on: January 17, 2017, 02:32:02 PM »
Because the right to bear arms is qualified by the reason that the young country needed a militia.
  Ah.  So was it a qualification on the right, or a purpose for the right?  See the difference?  These men knew how to qualify something and bring it to an end, as they did in several other places in the same document with other issues.



Of course I see the difference. And I think that question is quite lacking from most of what very pro-gun people say about the amendment. One can pretend as much as one wants that the language in the amendment about the right to bear arms is absolute and completely unambiguous/unqualified. But the fact is that the language about the militia is there. And to dismiss it as unimportant feels so disingenuous to me that it's hard for me to take those people seriously.

And again, before I have to get into a big sh*tstorm all over again with a bunch of people who have either not read what I've said above or just decided to jump over it:

- I am talking about dialogue, not digging in my heels on a particular stance
- I own guns
- I have a permit to carry

So, please, before you (not you, Malum, but people reading this thread in general) jump on me, please don't make me into the big "gun control freak straw man" you want to poke at.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2318
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2064 on: January 17, 2017, 02:37:19 PM »

Sorry my other one was confusing.  I thought it would make the issue more plain English and get the emotion and preconceived notions (like a well regulated militia being a "qualification") out of the discussion for a moment.  It is, actually the same sentence, substituting only the importance of a well educated electorate for the importance of a well regulated militia and the right to books for the right to arms.  If a well regulated militia is a qualification on the right protected by the Second Amendment, then a well educated electorate is a qualification on the right protected by the Second Amendment right to keep and read books.   Give it a chance to sink in (if you haven't, which I am not assuming), and, if not, oh, well, I tried.  thanks for at least giving it a shot.  :)

Yeah, I'm sorry, it's still not really doing it for me. Sorry, I guess the ideas are too dissimilar. Plus (sadly in many ways), a well educated electorate is not a qualification even for the right to vote, in this country.


Hell, it's not even a qualification for the right to a decent education, apparently.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Malum Prohibitum

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 656
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2065 on: January 17, 2017, 02:40:17 PM »
You kind of made the point with that last one.

Malum Prohibitum

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 656
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2066 on: January 17, 2017, 02:51:55 PM »
I think that question is quite lacking from most of what very pro-gun people say about the amendment. One can pretend as much as one wants that the language in the amendment about the right to bear arms is absolute and completely unambiguous/unqualified. But the fact is that the language about the militia is there. And to dismiss it as unimportant feels so disingenuous to me that it's hard for me to take those people seriously.
  I do not think the language is unimportant at all.  I just do not think that those who wrote and ratified it thought of it as a qualification so much as a purpose, if that makes sense.

This was the view (a predominate view) for at least half a century after its adoption (and the only viewpoint for most of that time).

This was my own state's Supreme Court ruling on it in 1846 (striking down a law banning the carry of weapons, but upholding it as applied to arms carried "secretly," that is, concealed).
Quote
Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! And Lexington, Concord, Camden, River Raisin, Sandusky, and the laurel-crowned field of New Orleans, plead eloquently for this interpretation!
Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243 (1846)

I share that only as an insight into how the law and men of learning looked at it as late as almost the mid-nineteenth century.  There is more, lots more, but I do not want to bog down the thread with lots of quotes nobody will read.

I am with you on this point, however, that I hate the twisting of history to fit one's viewpoint.  For one thing, while I like carrying concealed from time to time, the Founders basically thought anybody who did so was up to no good.  The majority of states in the early Republic banned carrying arms "secretly."  They upheld carrying arms openly.  Even the case I cited above did the same.  They quashed his indictment because he had a pistol in his hand, carrying it openly in other words, but they took pains to say that the statute is valid as against carrying arms "secretly," even though that was not at issue in the case.

The US Supreme Court, even in this century, Heller v. DC, remarked upon this, noting that concealed carry basically was not protected by the Second Amendment.

As a Second Amendment activist, I cannot have that conversation with another activist without watching their head explode and being accused of being a traitor.  I have to patiently explain that no, I favor protecting concealed carry, but it has to be done legislatively, as the Second Amendment did not and was never intended to protect bearing arms "secretly."  Anything contrary is just a revisionist history.

With that having been said, I see notes occasionally from that period of history about concealed arms, but that is not the same thing.  The first time I see arguments that the "right to bear arms" in the constitution protects concealed weapons is from the late nineteenth century, and even then it is a minority viewpoint.

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2318
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2067 on: January 17, 2017, 03:01:39 PM »
I think that question is quite lacking from most of what very pro-gun people say about the amendment. One can pretend as much as one wants that the language in the amendment about the right to bear arms is absolute and completely unambiguous/unqualified. But the fact is that the language about the militia is there. And to dismiss it as unimportant feels so disingenuous to me that it's hard for me to take those people seriously.
  I do not think the language is unimportant at all.  I just do not think that those who wrote and ratified it thought of it as a qualification so much as a purpose, if that makes sense.

This was the view (a predominate view) for at least half a century after its adoption (and the only viewpoint for most of that time).

This was my own state's Supreme Court ruling on it in 1846 (striking down a law banning the carry of weapons, but upholding it as applied to arms carried "secretly," that is, concealed).
Quote
Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! And Lexington, Concord, Camden, River Raisin, Sandusky, and the laurel-crowned field of New Orleans, plead eloquently for this interpretation!
Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243 (1846)

I share that only as an insight into how the law and men of learning looked at it as late as almost the mid-nineteenth century.  There is more, lots more, but I do not want to bog down the thread with lots of quotes nobody will read.

I am with you on this point, however, that I hate the twisting of history to fit one's viewpoint.  For one thing, while I like carrying concealed from time to time, the Founders basically thought anybody who did so was up to no good.  The majority of states in the early Republic banned carrying arms "secretly."  They upheld carrying arms openly.  Even the case I cited above did the same.  They quashed his indictment because he had a pistol in his hand, carrying it openly in other words, but they took pains to say that the statute is valid as against carrying arms "secretly," even though that was not at issue in the case.

The US Supreme Court, even in this century, Heller v. DC, remarked upon this, noting that concealed carry basically was not protected by the Second Amendment.

As a Second Amendment activist, I cannot have that conversation with another activist without watching their head explode and being accused of being a traitor.  I have to patiently explain that no, I favor protecting concealed carry, but it has to be done legislatively, as the Second Amendment did not and was never intended to protect bearing arms "secretly."  Anything contrary is just a revisionist history.

With that having been said, I see notes occasionally from that period of history about concealed arms, but that is not the same thing.  The first time I see arguments that the "right to bear arms" in the constitution protects concealed weapons is from the late nineteenth century, and even then it is a minority viewpoint.

Thanks for that perspective. It was interesting, and I did learn some things from it.

I always wonder whether hard-core Second Amendment types are really, truly for absolutely anyone being allowed to keep and bear arms of absolutely any description. Surely most of them would be able to come up with some limits that seem "reasonable" to them. In which case, to me that seems like an opening to establish a reasonable dialogue.

It truly saddens me that this is unlikely to ever happen because both sides are so firmly dug in.

Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1201
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2068 on: January 17, 2017, 03:03:24 PM »
As a Second Amendment activist, I cannot have that conversation with another activist without watching their head explode and being accused of being a traitor.  I have to patiently explain that no, I favor protecting concealed carry, but it has to be done legislatively, as the Second Amendment did not and was never intended to protect bearing arms "secretly."  Anything contrary is just a revisionist history.

Ha! As someone who regularly disagrees with conservatives and liberals despite sharing views with both, I can relate to this. Not sure why it's so hard for people to realize that you can stick to your guns (pun totally intended!) while acknowledging that you may be wrong about some things. It's no sin to concede small points, or even change your view dramatically.

Malum Prohibitum

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 656
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2069 on: January 17, 2017, 03:14:24 PM »
It truly saddens me that this is unlikely to ever happen because both sides are so firmly dug in.
  LOL! I'm pretty firmly dug in!  I just recognize reality and spend a lot of time (probably way too much time that ought to be put to some productive use) reading law and history . . .

KBecks

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 721
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2070 on: January 17, 2017, 03:17:10 PM »
Out of curiosity, was my post #2120 helpful to anybody?  The language does not seem so hard to understand, either the text or intent, if you remove the "gun" issue by replacing some of the words.
Out of curiosity, did my post # 2120

I thought it was a wonderful example, but I also support the 2nd amendment.

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2318
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2071 on: January 17, 2017, 03:34:47 PM »
You kind of made the point with that last one.

So wait, I'm really, really not getting your point.

Instead of an analogy, could you just spell out in very plain terms how you see that guns, the right to bear arms and a militia are analogous to books, creating an educated populace and voting?

I shouldn't assume, but I think it's possible that there are others who aren't very clear on it, either, because no one else responded to it before you asked for comments either.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 554
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2072 on: January 17, 2017, 04:14:55 PM »
The line between sensible gun control and terrible gun control laws are obviously easy to cross. The 2nd amendment should never be an excuse to dismiss all gun laws as bad or harmful. But I understand that legal gun owners can feel burdened by our numerous and sometimes ridiculous laws.

One of the biggest issues I see with new gun laws is that while it is pretty easy to add more laws, it tends to be difficult to kill old ones that have not necessarily help increase public safety.

I think we need to allow the CDC or some other government agency to once again do research into gun control laws and there impact on safety. Then I think all gun control laws should focus on removing keeping guns away form the mentally unstable and known violent criminals, while holding private gun owners accountable when carelessness allows one of their firearms to be used in a crime.

Of course the limiting factor with this approach is the capacity of law enforcement to get criminals off the streets and our terrible mental health systems ability to identify potentially violent individuals mentally ill people.

Honestly, though this could all be a nightmare for privacy rights, I think eventually we will be able to handle gun violence purely through the augmentation of the police force by surveillance technology. Maybe even in the near future it should be possible to equip public areas in such a way that potential violent actors in possession of firearms can be quickly intercepted and detained before they could do much harm.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8260
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2073 on: January 17, 2017, 05:55:37 PM »
A lot of debate about rights in this thread.

I can only assume that you all must fully support the right of any person to choose to die whenever they want?  You can't get a more fundamental right than control over your own life.  Suicide is by far the largest cause of death from gun use, so are you all pro-suicide?

Supporting the right to choose to die (which I do) is not the same as supporting suicide

Isn't it?  This is a question I've personally been having trouble coming to terms with.

I strongly believe that someone should be allowed to choose to die when he or she wants . . . far too many stories of elderly living in misery have brought me to that decision.  But if I believe that the elderly should be allowed to choose to die, what about someone in mid-life who has a disease that will cause pain for the rest of his life?  Again, my reasoning tells me that this is OK.

Yet, something doesn't sit right about granting the same right to a 20 year old who wants to exercise this right, despite the logical inconsistency.  (And given that guns are much more likely to be used on yourself than a potential robber, maybe I should be supporting gun rights as a way for people to more effectively kill themselves to be logically consistent.)

waltworks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2269
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2074 on: January 17, 2017, 08:10:17 PM »
FWIW, there are legal limits on "destructive devices" (ie, large caliber machine gun, rocket launcher, howitzer, ICBM) that require a permit (which is not easy to get). So we already have limits on weapons/arms which I suppose in theory are unconstitutional - but nobody is willing to stomach the thought of random drunk rednecks with military artillery. The question is just exactly where to draw the line (the "assault weapons" laws are an example).

Lots of destructive tech (and nonlethal weapons, too) exist now that did not in the 18th/19th centuries. Figuring out what to do about that wrt the 2nd amendment is an interesting problem. Even machine guns/artillery are generally not legal, though they are the same basic explosive slug-thrower tech that a musket is, just more/faster.

Personally, I think a reasonable standard might be any device that will help defend your home/property (or hunt) without endangering bystanders = legal. In other words, if I want to kill one dude, or at most a couple - good to go. Anything capable of killing a lot of people really fast or with more destructive power than needed for self defense or hunting = illegal. Problem is how to draw that line.

Personally I think having this stuff in the constitution is a bad idea - it is not a document that works well for technology-specific issues over long periods of time (hard to imagine a document that would be, really). I'd rather see weapons control done entirely legislatively so that new tech can be easily incorporated and super destructive stuff isn't legal just because constitution.

-W

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2318
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2075 on: January 17, 2017, 08:40:50 PM »
FWIW, there are legal limits on "destructive devices" (ie, large caliber machine gun, rocket launcher, howitzer, ICBM) that require a permit (which is not easy to get). So we already have limits on weapons/arms which I suppose in theory are unconstitutional - but nobody is willing to stomach the thought of random drunk rednecks with military artillery. The question is just exactly where to draw the line (the "assault weapons" laws are an example).

Lots of destructive tech (and nonlethal weapons, too) exist now that did not in the 18th/19th centuries. Figuring out what to do about that wrt the 2nd amendment is an interesting problem. Even machine guns/artillery are generally not legal, though they are the same basic explosive slug-thrower tech that a musket is, just more/faster.

Personally, I think a reasonable standard might be any device that will help defend your home/property (or hunt) without endangering bystanders = legal. In other words, if I want to kill one dude, or at most a couple - good to go. Anything capable of killing a lot of people really fast or with more destructive power than needed for self defense or hunting = illegal. Problem is how to draw that line.

Personally I think having this stuff in the constitution is a bad idea - it is not a document that works well for technology-specific issues over long periods of time (hard to imagine a document that would be, really). I'd rather see weapons control done entirely legislatively so that new tech can be easily incorporated and super destructive stuff isn't legal just because constitution.

-W

Well put.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

waltworks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2269
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2076 on: January 17, 2017, 09:40:31 PM »
I like to fall back on the "double barrel shotgun" rule. With a double barrel shotgun, you get 2 chances to nail the bad guy (or whatever you're trying to shoot) before you have to spend some time reloading. It's pretty hard to miss, it's pretty hard to pick up/handle/load/fire for a child. Unless a bystander is standing right next to the bad guy, you're not going to shoot through the wall or over a long distance and injure anyone else. There's no way you'll outgun the cops.

Add basic hunting rifles (again, a couple shots is all you should really need before reloading) and just call it good right there.

More tech and functional stopping power (ok, maybe not more *pure* stopping power than a freaking musket... but much more functional) than the founders had. Very little danger for any innocents around, relatively speaking. Hard to commit atrocities with. Perfection.

Of course there are a billion handguns and random other much more dangerous stuff around of all kinds. That's fine. Just stop manufacturing those and let them rust away over the next 30 or 40 years (or be collected by high-end enthusiasts, who are about as likely to go murder someone as I am to win the Eurovision song contest).

-W

Shane

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 686
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2077 on: January 18, 2017, 04:38:00 AM »
A lot of debate about rights in this thread.

I can only assume that you all must fully support the right of any person to choose to die whenever they want?  You can't get a more fundamental right than control over your own life.  Suicide is by far the largest cause of death from gun use, so are you all pro-suicide?

Absolutely. Every person should have the right to decide to die whenever he wants to, for any reason whatsoever.

hoosier

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 84
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2078 on: January 18, 2017, 06:04:25 AM »
I like to fall back on the "double barrel shotgun" rule. With a double barrel shotgun, you get 2 chances to nail the bad guy (or whatever you're trying to shoot) before you have to spend some time reloading. It's pretty hard to miss, it's pretty hard to pick up/handle/load/fire for a child. Unless a bystander is standing right next to the bad guy, you're not going to shoot through the wall or over a long distance and injure anyone else. There's no way you'll outgun the cops.

Add basic hunting rifles (again, a couple shots is all you should really need before reloading) and just call it good right there.

More tech and functional stopping power (ok, maybe not more *pure* stopping power than a freaking musket... but much more functional) than the founders had. Very little danger for any innocents around, relatively speaking. Hard to commit atrocities with. Perfection.

Of course there are a billion handguns and random other much more dangerous stuff around of all kinds. That's fine. Just stop manufacturing those and let them rust away over the next 30 or 40 years (or be collected by high-end enthusiasts, who are about as likely to go murder someone as I am to win the Eurovision song contest).

-W

So much to address here.

1.) Shotguns, with a typical defense load (0 or 00 buck), will go through MULTIPLE indoor walls.  You could easily take out somebody in the next room, or even next door on your typical vinyl sided home.
2.)  Shotguns, with a slug, are adequately accurate to hit a human sized target at 100 yards in 2 shots.  Is that considered long distance?
3.)  A "basic hunting rifle" holds 4-6 rounds, and can easily deliver them out to 500 - 800 yards.  Plenty of time for a reload when you're shooting that far out.  I thought long distances were a bad thing, hence the shotgun?
4.)  The founders' muskets were military grade weapons.  Here's an interesting thought - If the AR15 was available to the founders, do you think they would have carried the AR or the musket?  And why?
5.) You're going to need more like 100-x00 years for all the handguns to "rust away".  There are MANY WW1 Colts still out there and shoot just as good today as they did 100 years ago.  Modern pistols are made from stainless steel and polymer.  They literally don't rust away.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2017, 08:39:12 AM by hoosier »

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8260
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2079 on: January 18, 2017, 06:25:06 AM »
4.)  The founders' muskets were military grade weapons.  Here's an interesting thought - If the AR15 was available to the founders, do you think they would carried the AR or the musket?  And why?

Probably neither.  They would have used biological and chemical weapons in this hypothetical world where future technology is available in the past.  There were no treaties prohibiting the use of such weapons back then, and small arms are a total waste of time when you can just wipe out a populace with a well planted disease, and then move in a year or two later once the corpses have all degraded into nothing.

KBecks

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 721
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2080 on: January 18, 2017, 06:34:22 AM »
Your response assumes our founders had no morals.  That's incorrect.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8260
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2081 on: January 18, 2017, 06:49:33 AM »
Your response assumes our founders had no morals.  That's incorrect.

As moral as they may have been, executing prisoners of war after they've surrendered was not uncommon in the American revolution (Fort Grierson for example).  I figure when you're willing to kill unarmed prisoners you probably wouldn't have too much compunction about the use of biological or chemical weapons.

KBecks

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 721
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2082 on: January 18, 2017, 07:10:07 AM »
I like to fall back on the "double barrel shotgun" rule. With a double barrel shotgun, you get 2 chances to nail the bad guy (or whatever you're trying to shoot) before you have to spend some time reloading. It's pretty hard to miss, it's pretty hard to pick up/handle/load/fire for a child. Unless a bystander is standing right next to the bad guy, you're not going to shoot through the wall or over a long distance and injure anyone else. There's no way you'll outgun the cops.

Add basic hunting rifles (again, a couple shots is all you should really need before reloading) and just call it good right there.

More tech and functional stopping power (ok, maybe not more *pure* stopping power than a freaking musket... but much more functional) than the founders had. Very little danger for any innocents around, relatively speaking. Hard to commit atrocities with. Perfection.

Of course there are a billion handguns and random other much more dangerous stuff around of all kinds. That's fine. Just stop manufacturing those and let them rust away over the next 30 or 40 years (or be collected by high-end enthusiasts, who are about as likely to go murder someone as I am to win the Eurovision song contest).

-W

Let's put you up against a gang of 4 armed home invaders, or the Orlando shooter, etc. etc. with a fucking double barrel shotgun and see how you do.  We need to be practical.  It's not like one bullet immediately stops an attacker.  And most humans are moving targets.  I get that you have opinions but they're not really relevant.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4292
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2083 on: January 18, 2017, 07:13:03 AM »
I like to fall back on the "double barrel shotgun" rule. With a double barrel shotgun, you get 2 chances to nail the bad guy (or whatever you're trying to shoot) before you have to spend some time reloading. It's pretty hard to miss, it's pretty hard to pick up/handle/load/fire for a child. Unless a bystander is standing right next to the bad guy, you're not going to shoot through the wall or over a long distance and injure anyone else. There's no way you'll outgun the cops.

Add basic hunting rifles (again, a couple shots is all you should really need before reloading) and just call it good right there.

More tech and functional stopping power (ok, maybe not more *pure* stopping power than a freaking musket... but much more functional) than the founders had. Very little danger for any innocents around, relatively speaking. Hard to commit atrocities with. Perfection.

Of course there are a billion handguns and random other much more dangerous stuff around of all kinds. That's fine. Just stop manufacturing those and let them rust away over the next 30 or 40 years (or be collected by high-end enthusiasts, who are about as likely to go murder someone as I am to win the Eurovision song contest).

-W

Let's put you up against a gang of 4 armed home invaders, or the Orlando shooter, etc. etc. with a fucking double barrel shotgun and see how you do.  We need to be practical.  It's not like one bullet immediately stops an attacker.  And most humans are moving targets.  I get that you have opinions but they're not really relevant.
Most people don't have the training to go up against someone like that regardless of what gun they use.  Which is why I am pro-training.  If you have a weapon, you need to be able to use it properly.
And for all the people that flipped out on Kris, let me be clear, when I said you need to be in control of your weapons, how you do is up to you.  However, if you are wrong and someone gets hurt based on your negligence, you should be fiscally liable.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1134
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2084 on: January 18, 2017, 07:24:39 AM »
I like to fall back on the "double barrel shotgun" rule. With a double barrel shotgun, you get 2 chances to nail the bad guy (or whatever you're trying to shoot) before you have to spend some time reloading. It's pretty hard to miss, it's pretty hard to pick up/handle/load/fire for a child. Unless a bystander is standing right next to the bad guy, you're not going to shoot through the wall or over a long distance and injure anyone else. There's no way you'll outgun the cops.

Add basic hunting rifles (again, a couple shots is all you should really need before reloading) and just call it good right there.

More tech and functional stopping power (ok, maybe not more *pure* stopping power than a freaking musket... but much more functional) than the founders had. Very little danger for any innocents around, relatively speaking. Hard to commit atrocities with. Perfection.

Of course there are a billion handguns and random other much more dangerous stuff around of all kinds. That's fine. Just stop manufacturing those and let them rust away over the next 30 or 40 years (or be collected by high-end enthusiasts, who are about as likely to go murder someone as I am to win the Eurovision song contest).

-W

Let's put you up against a gang of 4 armed home invaders, or the Orlando shooter, etc. etc. with a fucking double barrel shotgun and see how you do.  We need to be practical.  It's not like one bullet immediately stops an attacker.  And most humans are moving targets.  I get that you have opinions but they're not really relevant.
Most people don't have the training to go up against someone like that regardless of what gun they use.  Which is why I am pro-training.  If you have a weapon, you need to be able to use it properly.
And for all the people that flipped out on Kris, let me be clear, when I said you need to be in control of your weapons, how you do is up to you.  However, if you are wrong and someone gets hurt based on your negligence, you should be fiscally liable.

Most people don't have the training to go against another untrained person?  To the best of my knowledge, the Orlando shooter was untrained.  Same thing with most home invaders.  I'll take my odds with a gun versus without.  That's a choice I should be able to make.

Regarding being fiscally liable for secured weapons in your home.  Are you advocating gun owners be liable for guns stolen from their homes?  That would have a chilling effect on gun ownership.  Will the same logic apply to police officers?  We recently had an officer get an MP5 stolen from his car.

Lastly, to those advocating leaving the populace with shotguns, I believe the supreme court struck down bans on commonly used firearms.  Tough to ban all semi-autos firearms with that ruling. 

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4292
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2085 on: January 18, 2017, 07:53:23 AM »
I like to fall back on the "double barrel shotgun" rule. With a double barrel shotgun, you get 2 chances to nail the bad guy (or whatever you're trying to shoot) before you have to spend some time reloading. It's pretty hard to miss, it's pretty hard to pick up/handle/load/fire for a child. Unless a bystander is standing right next to the bad guy, you're not going to shoot through the wall or over a long distance and injure anyone else. There's no way you'll outgun the cops.

Add basic hunting rifles (again, a couple shots is all you should really need before reloading) and just call it good right there.

More tech and functional stopping power (ok, maybe not more *pure* stopping power than a freaking musket... but much more functional) than the founders had. Very little danger for any innocents around, relatively speaking. Hard to commit atrocities with. Perfection.

Of course there are a billion handguns and random other much more dangerous stuff around of all kinds. That's fine. Just stop manufacturing those and let them rust away over the next 30 or 40 years (or be collected by high-end enthusiasts, who are about as likely to go murder someone as I am to win the Eurovision song contest).

-W

Let's put you up against a gang of 4 armed home invaders, or the Orlando shooter, etc. etc. with a fucking double barrel shotgun and see how you do.  We need to be practical.  It's not like one bullet immediately stops an attacker.  And most humans are moving targets.  I get that you have opinions but they're not really relevant.
Most people don't have the training to go up against someone like that regardless of what gun they use.  Which is why I am pro-training.  If you have a weapon, you need to be able to use it properly.
And for all the people that flipped out on Kris, let me be clear, when I said you need to be in control of your weapons, how you do is up to you.  However, if you are wrong and someone gets hurt based on your negligence, you should be fiscally liable.

Most people don't have the training to go against another untrained person?  To the best of my knowledge, the Orlando shooter was untrained.  Same thing with most home invaders.  I'll take my odds with a gun versus without.  That's a choice I should be able to make.

Regarding being fiscally liable for secured weapons in your home.  Are you advocating gun owners be liable for guns stolen from their homes?  That would have a chilling effect on gun ownership.  Will the same logic apply to police officers?  We recently had an officer get an MP5 stolen from his car.

Lastly, to those advocating leaving the populace with shotguns, I believe the supreme court struck down bans on commonly used firearms.  Tough to ban all semi-autos firearms with that ruling.
Yes, I am.  And I think that police officer was wrong.  You keep control of your weapon, period.  There can be exceptions, like my friend who has two guns safes, both of which are cemented into the base of the house.  You won't get them opened or moved without blowing up the house (which should get the police there). Or, if someone had control and was physically overpowered and had the gun stolen.  But otherwise, yes you should have control over your weapon or be fiscally liable for the damage it causes.  The idea that you should have a weapon and not be responsible for it is inane.  I learned to shoot (partly by the friend who owns all the guns) but I cannot safely keep one in my house so I don't.  There is a shooting range that I used to go to which had safes who hire for those who needed them.  I see that as a compromise. 

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8260
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2086 on: January 18, 2017, 08:01:13 AM »
Let's put you up against a gang of 4 armed home invaders, or the Orlando shooter, etc. etc. with a fucking double barrel shotgun and see how you do.  We need to be practical.

Wait, are we going to be practical . . . or are we preparing to fight off an army of invaders?  Because even well trained, well armed police officers don't do all that well in the scenarios you've described.

:P

deadlymonkey

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 394
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2087 on: January 18, 2017, 08:05:36 AM »
I like to fall back on the "double barrel shotgun" rule. With a double barrel shotgun, you get 2 chances to nail the bad guy (or whatever you're trying to shoot) before you have to spend some time reloading. It's pretty hard to miss, it's pretty hard to pick up/handle/load/fire for a child. Unless a bystander is standing right next to the bad guy, you're not going to shoot through the wall or over a long distance and injure anyone else. There's no way you'll outgun the cops.

Add basic hunting rifles (again, a couple shots is all you should really need before reloading) and just call it good right there.

More tech and functional stopping power (ok, maybe not more *pure* stopping power than a freaking musket... but much more functional) than the founders had. Very little danger for any innocents around, relatively speaking. Hard to commit atrocities with. Perfection.

Of course there are a billion handguns and random other much more dangerous stuff around of all kinds. That's fine. Just stop manufacturing those and let them rust away over the next 30 or 40 years (or be collected by high-end enthusiasts, who are about as likely to go murder someone as I am to win the Eurovision song contest).

-W

Let's put you up against a gang of 4 armed home invaders, or the Orlando shooter, etc. etc. with a fucking double barrel shotgun and see how you do.  We need to be practical.  It's not like one bullet immediately stops an attacker.  And most humans are moving targets.  I get that you have opinions but they're not really relevant.
Most people don't have the training to go up against someone like that regardless of what gun they use.  Which is why I am pro-training.  If you have a weapon, you need to be able to use it properly.
And for all the people that flipped out on Kris, let me be clear, when I said you need to be in control of your weapons, how you do is up to you.  However, if you are wrong and someone gets hurt based on your negligence, you should be fiscally liable.

Most people don't have the training to go against another untrained person?  To the best of my knowledge, the Orlando shooter was untrained.  Same thing with most home invaders.  I'll take my odds with a gun versus without.  That's a choice I should be able to make.

Regarding being fiscally liable for secured weapons in your home.  Are you advocating gun owners be liable for guns stolen from their homes?  That would have a chilling effect on gun ownership.  Will the same logic apply to police officers?  We recently had an officer get an MP5 stolen from his car.

Lastly, to those advocating leaving the populace with shotguns, I believe the supreme court struck down bans on commonly used firearms.  Tough to ban all semi-autos firearms with that ruling.
Yes, I am.  And I think that police officer was wrong.  You keep control of your weapon, period.  There can be exceptions, like my friend who has two guns safes, both of which are cemented into the base of the house.  You won't get them opened or moved without blowing up the house (which should get the police there). Or, if someone had control and was physically overpowered and had the gun stolen.  But otherwise, yes you should have control over your weapon or be fiscally liable for the damage it causes.  The idea that you should have a weapon and not be responsible for it is inane.  I learned to shoot (partly by the friend who owns all the guns) but I cannot safely keep one in my house so I don't.  There is a shooting range that I used to go to which had safes who hire for those who needed them.  I see that as a compromise.

I like your idea and you can compare a gun to a car.  If your child takes your car and causes damage with it, you are responsible for that.  If you car was stolen you are not liable for any damages that may be caused HOWEVER, if you leave your car in a state that makes it easy to steal (unlocked for example) then you may be liable depending on jurisdiction, and you certainly wont be getting full insurance payout in that case.

If your gun is used incorrectly, you are liable.  If it is stolen and you still took all necessary steps to secure it, then I would forgive liability, but if you left it sitting out on the table with the front door unlocked, you are irresponsible and at least partially liable.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1134
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2088 on: January 18, 2017, 08:09:40 AM »
I like to fall back on the "double barrel shotgun" rule. With a double barrel shotgun, you get 2 chances to nail the bad guy (or whatever you're trying to shoot) before you have to spend some time reloading. It's pretty hard to miss, it's pretty hard to pick up/handle/load/fire for a child. Unless a bystander is standing right next to the bad guy, you're not going to shoot through the wall or over a long distance and injure anyone else. There's no way you'll outgun the cops.

Add basic hunting rifles (again, a couple shots is all you should really need before reloading) and just call it good right there.

More tech and functional stopping power (ok, maybe not more *pure* stopping power than a freaking musket... but much more functional) than the founders had. Very little danger for any innocents around, relatively speaking. Hard to commit atrocities with. Perfection.

Of course there are a billion handguns and random other much more dangerous stuff around of all kinds. That's fine. Just stop manufacturing those and let them rust away over the next 30 or 40 years (or be collected by high-end enthusiasts, who are about as likely to go murder someone as I am to win the Eurovision song contest).

-W

Let's put you up against a gang of 4 armed home invaders, or the Orlando shooter, etc. etc. with a fucking double barrel shotgun and see how you do.  We need to be practical.  It's not like one bullet immediately stops an attacker.  And most humans are moving targets.  I get that you have opinions but they're not really relevant.
Most people don't have the training to go up against someone like that regardless of what gun they use.  Which is why I am pro-training.  If you have a weapon, you need to be able to use it properly.
And for all the people that flipped out on Kris, let me be clear, when I said you need to be in control of your weapons, how you do is up to you.  However, if you are wrong and someone gets hurt based on your negligence, you should be fiscally liable.

Most people don't have the training to go against another untrained person?  To the best of my knowledge, the Orlando shooter was untrained.  Same thing with most home invaders.  I'll take my odds with a gun versus without.  That's a choice I should be able to make.

Regarding being fiscally liable for secured weapons in your home.  Are you advocating gun owners be liable for guns stolen from their homes?  That would have a chilling effect on gun ownership.  Will the same logic apply to police officers?  We recently had an officer get an MP5 stolen from his car.

Lastly, to those advocating leaving the populace with shotguns, I believe the supreme court struck down bans on commonly used firearms.  Tough to ban all semi-autos firearms with that ruling.
Yes, I am.  And I think that police officer was wrong.  You keep control of your weapon, period.  There can be exceptions, like my friend who has two guns safes, both of which are cemented into the base of the house.  You won't get them opened or moved without blowing up the house (which should get the police there). Or, if someone had control and was physically overpowered and had the gun stolen.  But otherwise, yes you should have control over your weapon or be fiscally liable for the damage it causes.  The idea that you should have a weapon and not be responsible for it is inane.  I learned to shoot (partly by the friend who owns all the guns) but I cannot safely keep one in my house so I don't.  There is a shooting range that I used to go to which had safes who hire for those who needed them.  I see that as a compromise.

It is an undue burden to ask all gun owners to be liable for stolen weapons, have a large gun safe, or store them offsite.  Your weapons are controlled when they are stored in a house.  The problem is not the gun owner in that case, it's the criminal illegally entering the house.

Should you have the same liability for all the inanimate objects in your house?  Car is stolen and used in a criminal action, you are liable?  Knives?  Gasoline?  Propane?  All of those objects have the potential for harm, yet many are focused on guns.

If you are leaving loaded guns laying in an accessible area, you are liable.  If someone breaks into your house, I don't see how a reasonable person could assign liability to the gun owner in that case.


Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4292
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2089 on: January 18, 2017, 08:14:46 AM »
I like to fall back on the "double barrel shotgun" rule. With a double barrel shotgun, you get 2 chances to nail the bad guy (or whatever you're trying to shoot) before you have to spend some time reloading. It's pretty hard to miss, it's pretty hard to pick up/handle/load/fire for a child. Unless a bystander is standing right next to the bad guy, you're not going to shoot through the wall or over a long distance and injure anyone else. There's no way you'll outgun the cops.

Add basic hunting rifles (again, a couple shots is all you should really need before reloading) and just call it good right there.

More tech and functional stopping power (ok, maybe not more *pure* stopping power than a freaking musket... but much more functional) than the founders had. Very little danger for any innocents around, relatively speaking. Hard to commit atrocities with. Perfection.

Of course there are a billion handguns and random other much more dangerous stuff around of all kinds. That's fine. Just stop manufacturing those and let them rust away over the next 30 or 40 years (or be collected by high-end enthusiasts, who are about as likely to go murder someone as I am to win the Eurovision song contest).

-W

Let's put you up against a gang of 4 armed home invaders, or the Orlando shooter, etc. etc. with a fucking double barrel shotgun and see how you do.  We need to be practical.  It's not like one bullet immediately stops an attacker.  And most humans are moving targets.  I get that you have opinions but they're not really relevant.
Most people don't have the training to go up against someone like that regardless of what gun they use.  Which is why I am pro-training.  If you have a weapon, you need to be able to use it properly.
And for all the people that flipped out on Kris, let me be clear, when I said you need to be in control of your weapons, how you do is up to you.  However, if you are wrong and someone gets hurt based on your negligence, you should be fiscally liable.

Most people don't have the training to go against another untrained person?  To the best of my knowledge, the Orlando shooter was untrained.  Same thing with most home invaders.  I'll take my odds with a gun versus without.  That's a choice I should be able to make.

Regarding being fiscally liable for secured weapons in your home.  Are you advocating gun owners be liable for guns stolen from their homes?  That would have a chilling effect on gun ownership.  Will the same logic apply to police officers?  We recently had an officer get an MP5 stolen from his car.

Lastly, to those advocating leaving the populace with shotguns, I believe the supreme court struck down bans on commonly used firearms.  Tough to ban all semi-autos firearms with that ruling.
Yes, I am.  And I think that police officer was wrong.  You keep control of your weapon, period.  There can be exceptions, like my friend who has two guns safes, both of which are cemented into the base of the house.  You won't get them opened or moved without blowing up the house (which should get the police there). Or, if someone had control and was physically overpowered and had the gun stolen.  But otherwise, yes you should have control over your weapon or be fiscally liable for the damage it causes.  The idea that you should have a weapon and not be responsible for it is inane.  I learned to shoot (partly by the friend who owns all the guns) but I cannot safely keep one in my house so I don't.  There is a shooting range that I used to go to which had safes who hire for those who needed them.  I see that as a compromise.

It is an undue burden to ask all gun owners to be liable for stolen weapons, have a large gun safe, or store them offsite.  Your weapons are controlled when they are stored in a house.  The problem is not the gun owner in that case, it's the criminal illegally entering the house.

Should you have the same liability for all the inanimate objects in your house?  Car is stolen and used in a criminal action, you are liable?
Knives?  Gasoline?  Propane?  All of those objects have the potential for harm, yet many are focused on guns.

If you are leaving loaded guns laying in an accessible area, you are liable.  If someone breaks into your house, I don't see how a reasonable person could assign liability to the gun owner in that case.
Actually if you are negligent, you can be held liable for someone stealing your car and using it in an illegal manner (which includes not notifying the police within a certain time in certain states).  And my personal opinion, based on having a friend have his guns stolen because they knew the guns were there based on his statements, is that if you do not lock your guns up when they are not under your control, you are negligent. Which is why I don't have a gun.

deadlymonkey

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 394
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2090 on: January 18, 2017, 08:15:38 AM »
I like to fall back on the "double barrel shotgun" rule. With a double barrel shotgun, you get 2 chances to nail the bad guy (or whatever you're trying to shoot) before you have to spend some time reloading. It's pretty hard to miss, it's pretty hard to pick up/handle/load/fire for a child. Unless a bystander is standing right next to the bad guy, you're not going to shoot through the wall or over a long distance and injure anyone else. There's no way you'll outgun the cops.

Add basic hunting rifles (again, a couple shots is all you should really need before reloading) and just call it good right there.

More tech and functional stopping power (ok, maybe not more *pure* stopping power than a freaking musket... but much more functional) than the founders had. Very little danger for any innocents around, relatively speaking. Hard to commit atrocities with. Perfection.

Of course there are a billion handguns and random other much more dangerous stuff around of all kinds. That's fine. Just stop manufacturing those and let them rust away over the next 30 or 40 years (or be collected by high-end enthusiasts, who are about as likely to go murder someone as I am to win the Eurovision song contest).

-W

Let's put you up against a gang of 4 armed home invaders, or the Orlando shooter, etc. etc. with a fucking double barrel shotgun and see how you do.  We need to be practical.  It's not like one bullet immediately stops an attacker.  And most humans are moving targets.  I get that you have opinions but they're not really relevant.
Most people don't have the training to go up against someone like that regardless of what gun they use.  Which is why I am pro-training.  If you have a weapon, you need to be able to use it properly.
And for all the people that flipped out on Kris, let me be clear, when I said you need to be in control of your weapons, how you do is up to you.  However, if you are wrong and someone gets hurt based on your negligence, you should be fiscally liable.

Most people don't have the training to go against another untrained person?  To the best of my knowledge, the Orlando shooter was untrained.  Same thing with most home invaders.  I'll take my odds with a gun versus without.  That's a choice I should be able to make.

Regarding being fiscally liable for secured weapons in your home.  Are you advocating gun owners be liable for guns stolen from their homes?  That would have a chilling effect on gun ownership.  Will the same logic apply to police officers?  We recently had an officer get an MP5 stolen from his car.

Lastly, to those advocating leaving the populace with shotguns, I believe the supreme court struck down bans on commonly used firearms.  Tough to ban all semi-autos firearms with that ruling.
Yes, I am.  And I think that police officer was wrong.  You keep control of your weapon, period.  There can be exceptions, like my friend who has two guns safes, both of which are cemented into the base of the house.  You won't get them opened or moved without blowing up the house (which should get the police there). Or, if someone had control and was physically overpowered and had the gun stolen.  But otherwise, yes you should have control over your weapon or be fiscally liable for the damage it causes.  The idea that you should have a weapon and not be responsible for it is inane.  I learned to shoot (partly by the friend who owns all the guns) but I cannot safely keep one in my house so I don't.  There is a shooting range that I used to go to which had safes who hire for those who needed them.  I see that as a compromise.

It is an undue burden to ask all gun owners to be liable for stolen weapons, have a large gun safe, or store them offsite.  Your weapons are controlled when they are stored in a house.  The problem is not the gun owner in that case, it's the criminal illegally entering the house.

Should you have the same liability for all the inanimate objects in your house?  Car is stolen and used in a criminal action, you are liable?  Knives?  Gasoline?  Propane?  All of those objects have the potential for harm, yet many are focused on guns.

If you are leaving loaded guns laying in an accessible area, you are liable.  If someone breaks into your house, I don't see how a reasonable person could assign liability to the gun owner in that case.

What are the statistics for the number of guns stolen from homes that are subsequently used in crimes?  I think the liability issue is mostly when guns are used incorrectly and kill/wound someone in the home.  If gun theft is an actual significant problem there should be a rule requiring the filing of a report within 24 hours reporting a stolen firearm.  As for a guns safe being too expensive...if you can't afford a basic safe maybe you shouldn't be dropping hundreds on firearms, just saying.

waltworks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2269
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2091 on: January 18, 2017, 08:21:24 AM »
If your concern is fighting off the entirety of ISIS, then you'll want mortars, machine guns, and fighter jets - yet none of those are legal without a special permit.

I'm advocating the same standard for anything beyond the stuff that is similar to what existed when the constitution was written - and yes, a shotgun is plenty to defend yourself against any threat you are going to face outside of the military.

-W

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2318
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2092 on: January 18, 2017, 08:22:22 AM »
I like to fall back on the "double barrel shotgun" rule. With a double barrel shotgun, you get 2 chances to nail the bad guy (or whatever you're trying to shoot) before you have to spend some time reloading. It's pretty hard to miss, it's pretty hard to pick up/handle/load/fire for a child. Unless a bystander is standing right next to the bad guy, you're not going to shoot through the wall or over a long distance and injure anyone else. There's no way you'll outgun the cops.

Add basic hunting rifles (again, a couple shots is all you should really need before reloading) and just call it good right there.

More tech and functional stopping power (ok, maybe not more *pure* stopping power than a freaking musket... but much more functional) than the founders had. Very little danger for any innocents around, relatively speaking. Hard to commit atrocities with. Perfection.

Of course there are a billion handguns and random other much more dangerous stuff around of all kinds. That's fine. Just stop manufacturing those and let them rust away over the next 30 or 40 years (or be collected by high-end enthusiasts, who are about as likely to go murder someone as I am to win the Eurovision song contest).

-W

Let's put you up against a gang of 4 armed home invaders, or the Orlando shooter, etc. etc. with a fucking double barrel shotgun and see how you do.  We need to be practical.  It's not like one bullet immediately stops an attacker.  And most humans are moving targets.  I get that you have opinions but they're not really relevant.
Most people don't have the training to go up against someone like that regardless of what gun they use.  Which is why I am pro-training.  If you have a weapon, you need to be able to use it properly.
And for all the people that flipped out on Kris, let me be clear, when I said you need to be in control of your weapons, how you do is up to you.  However, if you are wrong and someone gets hurt based on your negligence, you should be fiscally liable.

Most people don't have the training to go against another untrained person?  To the best of my knowledge, the Orlando shooter was untrained.  Same thing with most home invaders.  I'll take my odds with a gun versus without.  That's a choice I should be able to make.

Regarding being fiscally liable for secured weapons in your home.  Are you advocating gun owners be liable for guns stolen from their homes?  That would have a chilling effect on gun ownership.  Will the same logic apply to police officers?  We recently had an officer get an MP5 stolen from his car.

Lastly, to those advocating leaving the populace with shotguns, I believe the supreme court struck down bans on commonly used firearms.  Tough to ban all semi-autos firearms with that ruling.
Yes, I am.  And I think that police officer was wrong.  You keep control of your weapon, period.  There can be exceptions, like my friend who has two guns safes, both of which are cemented into the base of the house.  You won't get them opened or moved without blowing up the house (which should get the police there). Or, if someone had control and was physically overpowered and had the gun stolen.  But otherwise, yes you should have control over your weapon or be fiscally liable for the damage it causes.  The idea that you should have a weapon and not be responsible for it is inane.  I learned to shoot (partly by the friend who owns all the guns) but I cannot safely keep one in my house so I don't.  There is a shooting range that I used to go to which had safes who hire for those who needed them.  I see that as a compromise.

I like your idea and you can compare a gun to a car.  If your child takes your car and causes damage with it, you are responsible for that.  If you car was stolen you are not liable for any damages that may be caused HOWEVER, if you leave your car in a state that makes it easy to steal (unlocked for example) then you may be liable depending on jurisdiction, and you certainly wont be getting full insurance payout in that case.

If your gun is used incorrectly, you are liable.  If it is stolen and you still took all necessary steps to secure it, then I would forgive liability, but if you left it sitting out on the table with the front door unlocked, you are irresponsible and at least partially liable.

I think there's a lot of room for having a common-sense dialogue about things like this... IF everyone comes to the table in good faith.

That's a pretty big if, however, especially these days.

Which is sad. I think there's so much suspicion on both sides of the aisle that no one wants to give even one millimeter, for fear that the other side will take everything away from them. Let's be honest, in the current climate, we're in a situation where both sides feel like they have to protect themselves from the evil other, instead of seeing the other side as decent people who are honestly concerned. And they justify their fears with slippery slope arguments. Which, of course, as intelligent people, we all know are a logical fallacy.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

In reality, there's a range of viewpoints, and plenty of room for dialogue. But it is all too easy for people to jump from someone's point A, and conclude that they also must believe B, C, D, etc. Because they're evil, or stupid, or ignorant, or choose your own derogatory and dismissive label.

If you own a gun, you need to be responsible for it, because it is a deadly weapon. That much seems absolutely clear. And honestly, anyone who would say, "If I leave a loaded gun on the table at a food court in a mall and some kid kills another kid with it, I'm not liable," is being completely unreasonable. That is one extreme, but the vast majority of people do not think this way. Likewise, there's another extreme, whereby someone says, for example, "If you have an unloaded gun in your house, in a locked safe, with the bullets and magazines stored in another location, and someone breaks into your locked house, hits you over the head and knocks you unconscious, then breaks into your locked safe, finds your bullets, steals them, and goes and kills someone with it, you are still liable." The vast majority of people would see that as being completely unreasonable. And both of those examples are extreme enough to essentially be straw men argument, in my opinion.

So, if we want to make any ground at all, it's important to turn away from those arguments, and stop tilting at those windmills, and work in the in-between toward common sense and logic. In good faith, and assuming good faith of the other person as well.

I'm not optimistic that it will happen. But it is the way to begin.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2017, 08:24:26 AM by Kris »
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8260
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2093 on: January 18, 2017, 08:33:57 AM »
What are the statistics for the number of guns stolen from homes that are subsequently used in crimes?  I think the liability issue is mostly when guns are used incorrectly and kill/wound someone in the home.  If gun theft is an actual significant problem there should be a rule requiring the filing of a report within 24 hours reporting a stolen firearm.  As for a guns safe being too expensive...if you can't afford a basic safe maybe you shouldn't be dropping hundreds on firearms, just saying.

One in ten federal prison inmates had acquired a gun through theft according to the DOJ.  One in five juvenile offenders had stolen their first gun, and half had stolen a gun at least once in their life.  https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF - Page 3.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1134
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2094 on: January 18, 2017, 08:43:00 AM »
I like to fall back on the "double barrel shotgun" rule. With a double barrel shotgun, you get 2 chances to nail the bad guy (or whatever you're trying to shoot) before you have to spend some time reloading. It's pretty hard to miss, it's pretty hard to pick up/handle/load/fire for a child. Unless a bystander is standing right next to the bad guy, you're not going to shoot through the wall or over a long distance and injure anyone else. There's no way you'll outgun the cops.

Add basic hunting rifles (again, a couple shots is all you should really need before reloading) and just call it good right there.

More tech and functional stopping power (ok, maybe not more *pure* stopping power than a freaking musket... but much more functional) than the founders had. Very little danger for any innocents around, relatively speaking. Hard to commit atrocities with. Perfection.

Of course there are a billion handguns and random other much more dangerous stuff around of all kinds. That's fine. Just stop manufacturing those and let them rust away over the next 30 or 40 years (or be collected by high-end enthusiasts, who are about as likely to go murder someone as I am to win the Eurovision song contest).

-W

Let's put you up against a gang of 4 armed home invaders, or the Orlando shooter, etc. etc. with a fucking double barrel shotgun and see how you do.  We need to be practical.  It's not like one bullet immediately stops an attacker.  And most humans are moving targets.  I get that you have opinions but they're not really relevant.
Most people don't have the training to go up against someone like that regardless of what gun they use.  Which is why I am pro-training.  If you have a weapon, you need to be able to use it properly.
And for all the people that flipped out on Kris, let me be clear, when I said you need to be in control of your weapons, how you do is up to you.  However, if you are wrong and someone gets hurt based on your negligence, you should be fiscally liable.

Most people don't have the training to go against another untrained person?  To the best of my knowledge, the Orlando shooter was untrained.  Same thing with most home invaders.  I'll take my odds with a gun versus without.  That's a choice I should be able to make.

Regarding being fiscally liable for secured weapons in your home.  Are you advocating gun owners be liable for guns stolen from their homes?  That would have a chilling effect on gun ownership.  Will the same logic apply to police officers?  We recently had an officer get an MP5 stolen from his car.

Lastly, to those advocating leaving the populace with shotguns, I believe the supreme court struck down bans on commonly used firearms.  Tough to ban all semi-autos firearms with that ruling.
Yes, I am.  And I think that police officer was wrong.  You keep control of your weapon, period.  There can be exceptions, like my friend who has two guns safes, both of which are cemented into the base of the house.  You won't get them opened or moved without blowing up the house (which should get the police there). Or, if someone had control and was physically overpowered and had the gun stolen.  But otherwise, yes you should have control over your weapon or be fiscally liable for the damage it causes.  The idea that you should have a weapon and not be responsible for it is inane.  I learned to shoot (partly by the friend who owns all the guns) but I cannot safely keep one in my house so I don't.  There is a shooting range that I used to go to which had safes who hire for those who needed them.  I see that as a compromise.

It is an undue burden to ask all gun owners to be liable for stolen weapons, have a large gun safe, or store them offsite.  Your weapons are controlled when they are stored in a house.  The problem is not the gun owner in that case, it's the criminal illegally entering the house.

Should you have the same liability for all the inanimate objects in your house?  Car is stolen and used in a criminal action, you are liable?  Knives?  Gasoline?  Propane?  All of those objects have the potential for harm, yet many are focused on guns.

If you are leaving loaded guns laying in an accessible area, you are liable.  If someone breaks into your house, I don't see how a reasonable person could assign liability to the gun owner in that case.

What are the statistics for the number of guns stolen from homes that are subsequently used in crimes?  I think the liability issue is mostly when guns are used incorrectly and kill/wound someone in the home.  If gun theft is an actual significant problem there should be a rule requiring the filing of a report within 24 hours reporting a stolen firearm.  As for a guns safe being too expensive...if you can't afford a basic safe maybe you shouldn't be dropping hundreds on firearms, just saying.

A basic safe takes up space and is about as useful as locked closet (my method).  It also advertises the fact you have guns.  A locked closet on the other hand does not advertise to the world you have a gun collection.  It's not a money issue, it's a cost/benefit issue.

The example given was a safe that is concreted into the basement or a gun range.  That is an unreasonable position from both a cost benefit standpoint and a practical standpoint. 

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3608
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2095 on: January 18, 2017, 08:43:33 AM »
I like to fall back on the "double barrel shotgun" rule. With a double barrel shotgun, you get 2 chances to nail the bad guy (or whatever you're trying to shoot) before you have to spend some time reloading. It's pretty hard to miss, it's pretty hard to pick up/handle/load/fire for a child. Unless a bystander is standing right next to the bad guy, you're not going to shoot through the wall or over a long distance and injure anyone else. There's no way you'll outgun the cops.

Add basic hunting rifles (again, a couple shots is all you should really need before reloading) and just call it good right there.

More tech and functional stopping power (ok, maybe not more *pure* stopping power than a freaking musket... but much more functional) than the founders had. Very little danger for any innocents around, relatively speaking. Hard to commit atrocities with. Perfection.

Of course there are a billion handguns and random other much more dangerous stuff around of all kinds. That's fine. Just stop manufacturing those and let them rust away over the next 30 or 40 years (or be collected by high-end enthusiasts, who are about as likely to go murder someone as I am to win the Eurovision song contest).

-W

Let's put you up against a gang of 4 armed home invaders, or the Orlando shooter, etc. etc. with a fucking double barrel shotgun and see how you do.  We need to be practical.  It's not like one bullet immediately stops an attacker.  And most humans are moving targets.  I get that you have opinions but they're not really relevant.
Most people don't have the training to go up against someone like that regardless of what gun they use.  Which is why I am pro-training.  If you have a weapon, you need to be able to use it properly.
And for all the people that flipped out on Kris, let me be clear, when I said you need to be in control of your weapons, how you do is up to you.  However, if you are wrong and someone gets hurt based on your negligence, you should be fiscally liable.

Most people don't have the training to go against another untrained person?  To the best of my knowledge, the Orlando shooter was untrained. Same thing with most home invaders.  I'll take my odds with a gun versus without.  That's a choice I should be able to make.

Regarding being fiscally liable for secured weapons in your home.  Are you advocating gun owners be liable for guns stolen from their homes?  That would have a chilling effect on gun ownership.  Will the same logic apply to police officers?  We recently had an officer get an MP5 stolen from his car.

Lastly, to those advocating leaving the populace with shotguns, I believe the supreme court struck down bans on commonly used firearms.  Tough to ban all semi-autos firearms with that ruling.

He was a licensed armed security guard.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/nation/state-slaps-150000-fine-on-security-firm-that-employed-orlando-shooter/2292978

Quote
Mateen was a G4S security guard for about nine years. Licensing records show he was a proficient shooter who scored in the 98th percentile with the same caliber weapon a 9mm semiautomatic pistol used in the Orlando slayings.

deadlymonkey

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 394
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2096 on: January 18, 2017, 08:46:25 AM »
What are the statistics for the number of guns stolen from homes that are subsequently used in crimes?  I think the liability issue is mostly when guns are used incorrectly and kill/wound someone in the home.  If gun theft is an actual significant problem there should be a rule requiring the filing of a report within 24 hours reporting a stolen firearm.  As for a guns safe being too expensive...if you can't afford a basic safe maybe you shouldn't be dropping hundreds on firearms, just saying.

One in ten federal prison inmates had acquired a gun through theft according to the DOJ.  One in five juvenile offenders had stolen their first gun, and half had stolen a gun at least once in their life.  https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF - Page 3.

seems like there should be some rules or standards about securing firearms to reduce incidents of theft not unlike ignition guards in newer cars to help reduce although not eliminate incidents of theft.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1134
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2097 on: January 18, 2017, 08:49:55 AM »

If you own a gun, you need to be responsible for it, because it is a deadly weapon. That much seems absolutely clear. And honestly, anyone who would say, "If I leave a loaded gun on the table at a food court in a mall and some kid kills another kid with it, I'm not liable," is being completely unreasonable. That is one extreme, but the vast majority of people do not think this way.

Agree.  In fact, in many states you are liable if irresponsible with a loaded weapon in your home and something bad happens.   I agree with that as well.

Likewise, there's another extreme, whereby someone says, for example, "If you have an unloaded gun in your house, in a locked safe, with the bullets and magazines stored in another location, and someone breaks into your locked house, hits you over the head and knocks you unconscious, then breaks into your locked safe, finds your bullets, steals them, and goes and kills someone with it, you are still liable." The vast majority of people would see that as being completely unreasonable. And both of those examples are extreme enough to essentially be straw men argument, in my opinion.

In this thread, Gin1984 has set the bar for safe storage so high as to be unreasonable.   Not every gun owner needs a concreted safe in their basement.  That is literally the example given for safe storage.  If those are the requirements to avoid liability, no one but the wealthy will own a gun.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1134
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2098 on: January 18, 2017, 08:54:35 AM »
He was a licensed armed security guard.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/nation/state-slaps-150000-fine-on-security-firm-that-employed-orlando-shooter/2292978

Quote
Mateen was a G4S security guard for about nine years. Licensing records show he was a proficient shooter who scored in the 98th percentile with the same caliber weapon a 9mm semiautomatic pistol used in the Orlando slayings.

I stand corrected, he was better trained than most gun owners.  I'd prefer to avoid the situation entirely, but if someone is trying to kill me, I'd prefer having a gun over not having one. 

Many criminals are not nearly as well versed in firearms.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4292
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2099 on: January 18, 2017, 08:57:55 AM »

If you own a gun, you need to be responsible for it, because it is a deadly weapon. That much seems absolutely clear. And honestly, anyone who would say, "If I leave a loaded gun on the table at a food court in a mall and some kid kills another kid with it, I'm not liable," is being completely unreasonable. That is one extreme, but the vast majority of people do not think this way.

Agree.  In fact, in many states you are liable if irresponsible with a loaded weapon in your home and something bad happens.   I agree with that as well.

Likewise, there's another extreme, whereby someone says, for example, "If you have an unloaded gun in your house, in a locked safe, with the bullets and magazines stored in another location, and someone breaks into your locked house, hits you over the head and knocks you unconscious, then breaks into your locked safe, finds your bullets, steals them, and goes and kills someone with it, you are still liable." The vast majority of people would see that as being completely unreasonable. And both of those examples are extreme enough to essentially be straw men argument, in my opinion.

In this thread, Gin1984 has set the bar for safe storage so high as to be unreasonable.   Not every gun owner needs a concreted safe in their basement.  That is literally the example given for safe storage.  If those are the requirements to avoid liability, no one but the wealthy will own a gun.
Actually I said it is cemented to the base of the house, not that it was in a basement.  One, I would not be so irresponsible to say where weapons are stored and two, not all houses have basements.  If it is out of someone's hand's who is responsible for it, it should be unable to be accessed.  That means a safe.  So, the other option is you have someone else supervise your weapon.  Theft is a big deal with guns and you should be able to keep your weapon secured.  If you think secure your weapon is a high bar, I don't consider you responsible with it.  However, you seemed to miss that, you are only liable IF someone else gets it.  If you are so sure a safe is not necessary, then take the risk and if it gets stolen, it is on you, because it was your choice to keep it unsecured.